For protestants (please read)

[Chazemataz]

When, at the last supper, Jesus took the bread and gave thanks and broke it and handed it to His disciples, He said:“Take this all of you and eat it. This is my body which will be given up for you.” Then He did the same for the wine. He never said that it represents His body and blood, He said that it is literally His body and blood. He told them to do this in memory of Him. Protestant Churches do not say that the Eucharist is literally the body of Christ. They say it represents the body. In the Roman Catholic Church, the eucharist IS the Body Of Christ. That is why my grandpa converted from Methodist church to Catholic Church. When I asked my uncle, who is a very religious man why they do this, he couldn’t give an answer. My pastor Uncle couldn’t give an answer to this. How do you proetstants justify this?

 

[iwonder]

Chazemataz:

When, at the last supper, Jesus took the bread and gave thanks and broke it and handed it to His disciples, He said:“Take this all of you and eat it. This is my body which will be given up for you.” Then He did the same for the wine. He never said that it represents His body and blood, He said that it is literally His body and blood. He told them to do this in memory of Him. Protestant Churches do not say that the Eucharist is literally the body of Christ. They say it represents the body. In the Roman Catholic Church, the eucharist IS the Body Of Christ. That is why my grandpa converted from Methodist church to Catholic Church. When I asked my uncle, who is a very religious man why they do this, he couldn’t give an answer. My pastor Uncle couldn’t give an answer to this. How do you proetstants justify this?

Pardon me, Chazemataz- I’m not protestant, I’m RCC. But I beleive that Jesus said in the Scripture- “This is my body and this is my blood.” Catholics take this literally. So did people in Jesus’ time and they split because they thought he was being cannabalistic I guess. Others heard it among the disciples and accepted it, others continued on with him although they did not understand. Then Jesus says “Do this in memory of me.” As Catholics we also abide by that, but I think Protestants are more comfortable with the memory part then they are the IS part. Just as in Jesus’ day. If this is the best people can do, why argue?
I think people do the best they can do as far as Jesus’ goes. He is a paradox, the Eucharist is a paradox. I think RCC people get too upset with others who do not understand rather than understanding that everyone comes to God at God’s rate, not ours.
Just a thought.

 

[Zooey]

Methodists & Lutherans, at least, do take it literally. So do Anglicans. (The actual meaning/means of the change is explained differently, however). But at least some protestants–including myself–do take it literally.
God bless.

 

[jsussvsus]

Chazemataz:

When, at the last supper, Jesus took the bread and gave thanks and broke it and handed it to His disciples, He said:“Take this all of you and eat it. This is my body which will be given up for you.” Then He did the same for the wine. He never said that it represents His body and blood, He said that it is literally His body and blood. He told them to do this in memory of Him. Protestant Churches do not say that the Eucharist is literally the body of Christ. They say it represents the body. In the Roman Catholic Church, the eucharist IS the Body Of Christ. That is why my grandpa converted from Methodist church to Catholic Church. When I asked my uncle, who is a very religious man why they do this, he couldn’t give an answer. My pastor Uncle couldn’t give an answer to this. How do you proetstants justify this?

Hi
This is something that I’m looking into further because I want to make sure I’m doing as Christ wants me to. I will try to explain how I have been taught. Scripture says that Jesus broke BREAD.
If you were explaining to someone how a car accident that you were in happend and you used an eraser, you might say now this is my car, and this is the other car. Now I know that you don’t mean that your car is actually the eraser. You are using it to represent your car. If Jesus were giving us an example of how to take communion, and he really meant for us eat his body and drink his blood he would have peeled some skin off and blead into the cup. He then would have said take this, this is my body etc.
I also don’t understand why catholics think that eating Jesus’s body and drinking his blood is a beautiful thing.
Pope Innocent IV declared cannibalism a sin.
As I said this is still something that I’m praying about and looking further into.
Thanks

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Are you sure Methodists take it literal?

 

[Zooey]

FuzzyBunny116:

Are you sure Methodists take it literal?

Yes, we do. As I said, we interpret what is happening differently, but, yes, we believe that we are indeed recieving the Body &Blood of Our Lord. This is why we use the “Bidding Prayer” of the early Anglican church, which calls for true repentence for sin before recieving.
God bless.

 

[O.S.Luke]

United Methodists believe in the Real Presence at the Eucharist:

Jesus Christ, who “is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:3), is truly present in Holy Communion. Through Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, God meets us at the Table. God, who has given the sacraments to the church, acts in and through Holy Communion. Christ is present through the community gathered in Jesus’ name (Matthew 18:20), through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and through the elements of bread and wine shared (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants; it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only. (from the official document, This Holy Mystery)

Do UM’s embrace Transubstantiation? No. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully.

The epiclesis during the Eucharistic prayer is thus: “Pour out your Holy Spirit on us and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the Body and Blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the Body of Christ, redeemed by His blood.”

O+

 

[Hlebear]

I have seen the metaphor approach to explaining that Jesus did not literally mean that the bread/wine was his flesh/blood- they were symbols/representations such as when he said I am a vine, I am the door. There is a problem though with this approach. If I say, I am a plant or I am a car, I am directly saying that the car or plant represents me. If I say, this is my cat, this is my car- there is no symbolic representation occuring in this phrase. It is a direct statement and not a metaphor. When Jesus said, this is my body, this is my blood, he meant it literally. Just a thought.

 

[Philthy]

Zooey:

Yes, we do. As I said, we interpret what is happening differently, but, yes, we believe that we are indeed recieving the Body &Blood of Our Lord. This is why we use the “Bidding Prayer” of the early Anglican church, which calls for true repentence for sin before recieving.
God bless.

I don’t know about that my friend. To acknowledge the Real Presence you must be prepared to differentiate it “actually” being the body and blood of Jesus versus recieving Him “spiritually”.
The bidding prayer in no way guarantees that you accept the Real Presence - all the “symbolic only” denominations also beleive in receiving communion in a “worthy manner” due to the admonitions of Paul.
I read a quote somewhere today about Wesley saying that all Christians have the duty of receiving the Eucharist daily so perhaps you have a point. Still, I’d like to see it stated from your official doctrine - where might that be found?

Phil

 

[Philthy]

O.S. Luke:

United Methodists believe in the Real Presence at the Eucharist:

Do UM’s embrace Transubstantiation? No. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully.

The epiclesis during the Eucharistic prayer is thus: “Pour out your Holy Spirit on us and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the Body and Blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the Body of Christ, redeemed by His blood.”

O+

Actually isn’t it "Make them become for us the Body and Blood…

 

[Philthy]

jsussvsus:

Hi
This is something that I’m looking into further because I want to make sure I’m doing as Christ wants me to. I will try to explain how I have been taught. Scripture says that Jesus broke BREAD.
If you were explaining to someone how a car accident that you were in happend and you used an eraser, you might say now this is my car, and this is the other car. Now I know that you don’t mean that your car is actually the eraser. You are using it to represent your car. If Jesus were giving us an example of how to take communion, and he really meant for us eat his body and drink his blood he would have peeled some skin off and blead into the cup. He then would have said take this, this is my body etc.
I also don’t understand why catholics think that eating Jesus’s body and drinking his blood is a beautiful thing.
Pope Innocent IV declared cannibalism a sin.
As I said this is still something that I’m praying about and looking further into.
Thanks

You are trying to understand according to “the flesh” just like the Jews in John 6 - we all do this, but these are words of “spirit and life” and must be approached as such.
Read carefully John 6 and get a good Catholic commentary.
And also don’t forget that the Lamb of God analogy from the OT required the eating of the Lamb.
There are several reasons beyond the obvious why a literal interpretation makes the most sense. Perhaps the most compelling reason to believe that Christ meant what He said literally is the reaction of most who heard him: "The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus reiterates in even stronger language, "Amen, Amen I say to you , unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you do not have life within you. Whoever eats(he used a word that means gnaws here to be more graphic) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…FOR MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD AND MY BLOOD IS TRUE DRINK…
Sorry, that is not the language of symbolism. In addition, if, for the sake of argument, we accept that he meant to be symbolic, how do we deal with the fact that almost all of his disciples stopped following him because of this “misunderstanding” yet he doesn’t bother to explain that he just meant it symbolically like he does at other times in the Gospels? Again, makes no sense.
Add to this the witness of the early church fathers and it is a done deal.

good luck

Phil

 

[On_my_way]

Posting these questions to non-Catholics and/or Protestants will not do any good, because they don’t understand and believe in our Catholic Faith. All non-Catholics will insist that Catholics, due to our belief of the Eucharist, engage in cannibolism and violate the biblical prohibition on the drinking of blood. This misunderstanding is what led unbelieving Jews and disciples in John 6 to reject Jesus when He spoke about the need to eat his body and drink His blood. The disciples who believed were rewarded for thier Faith at the Last Supper.

Consider Christ’s use of the bread and wine in all four accounts (Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:17-20; and 1 Cor 11:23-25) Jesus tell us that this is my body and this is my blood. He never once spoke of it as being symbolic. If He was referring to His body and blood as as symbolic He would have clearly explained it but that was not the case, Jesus spoke literally, Which is the case.

JSUSSVSUS, you state that you are Christian, which makes me believe you are a non-Catholic which, I would guess makes you a Protestant. Tell me this. Didn’t Martin Luther once accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and didn’t he also affirm the doctrine also? Now tell me this also, Catholics have been around since the time of Jesus, Protestants didn’t come around until 1517, some 15 hundred years after Jesus. Now are you to tell me that your teachings are the Truth when most of your teachings are from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has over 2 thousand years of solid foundation(one Church). There are many other denoms. out there, but only 1 Catholic Church which has stood as the Real Church, always has always will. It is time you Protestants just accept the fact and come on HOME.

 

[savone]

No thanks. I’ve had my share of “bait-and-switch” for the day. Maybe, another time. Then again, maybe not.

 

[iwonder]

savone:

No thanks. I’ve had my share of “bait-and-switch” for the day. Maybe, another time. Then again, maybe not.

Huh? Whatever, man.

 

[Chazemataz]

savone:

No thanks. I’ve had my share of “bait-and-switch” for the day. Maybe, another time. Then again, maybe not.

I am going to a wedding on Saturday. The reception is at the Pirate’s stadium, in a all-you-can-eat hours d’uroves buffet.

Well, it was just as odd and completely misplaced as your sentiment.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Philthy:

Actually isn’t it "Make them become for us the Body and Blood…

I cut-and-pasted that right out of the electronic version of the United Methodist Book of Worship. I also just looked it up in the hymnal - it is “Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ…” (I hoped it was… because I’ve been saying it that way for nearly 18 years).

Also, regarding daily/more frequent communion, read Wesley’s sermon, “The Duty of Constant Communion,” which can be found here. An excerpt:

I. I am to show that it is the duty of every Christian to receive the Lord’s Supper as often as he can.

1. The First reason why it is the duty of every Christian so to do is, because it is a plain command of Christ. That this is his command, appears from the words of the text, “Do this in remembrance of me:” By which, as the Apostles were obliged to bless, break, and give the bread to all that joined with them in holy things; so were all Christians obliged to receive those sign of Christ’s body and blood. Here, therefore, the bread and wine are commanded to be received, in remembrance of his death, to the end of the world. Observe, too, that this command was given by our Lord when he was just laying down his life for our sakes. They are, therefore, as it were, his dying words to all his followers.

1. A Second reason why every Christian should do this as often as he can, is, because the benefits of doing it are so great to all that do it in obedience to him; viz., the forgiveness of our past sins and the present strengthening and refreshing of our souls. In this world we are never free from temptations. Whatever way of life we are in, whatever our condition be, whether we are sick or well, in trouble or at ease, the enemies of our souls are watching to lead us into sin. And too often they prevail over us. Now, when we are convinced of having sinned against God, what surer way have we of procuring pardon from him, than the “showing forth the Lord’s death;” and beseeching him, for the sake of his Son’s sufferings, to blot out all our sins?

From reading Wesley’s journals, we find that he participated in the Eucharist several times a week, and often each day of the week.

Also, this is from the newly authorized and official document, This Holy Mystery:

The practice of the Christian church from its earliest years was weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Day. The Didache, a source from the late first century or early second century says, “On every Lord’s Day — his special day — come together and break bread and give thanks . . .” (14). Justin Martyr, writing around A.D. 150, relates, “And on the day called Sunday there is a meeting . . . bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president similarly sends up prayers and thanksgivings . . .” (Chapter 67). Most Christian traditions have continued this pattern.

John Wesley was highly critical of the infrequency of Holy Communion in the Church of England of his day. He exhorted his followers to practice “constant communion” because Christ had so commanded and because the spiritual benefits are so great (“The Duty of Constant Communion”). In his 1784 letter to American Methodists, Wesley counseled, “I also advise the elders to administer the supper of the Lord on every Lord’s day” (“Letter to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and Our Brethren in North America”). - from This Holy Mystery

This Holy Mystery - A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion can be found here.

O+

 

[Zooey]

Philthy:

I don’t know about that my friend. To acknowledge the Real Presence you must be prepared to differentiate it “actually” being the body and blood of Jesus versus recieving Him “spiritually”.
The bidding prayer in no way guarantees that you accept the Real Presence - all the “symbolic only” denominations also beleive in receiving communion in a “worthy manner” due to the admonitions of Paul.I read a quote somewhere today about Wesley saying that all Christians have the duty of receiving the Eucharist daily so perhaps you have a point. Still, I’d like to see it stated from your official doctrine - where might that be found?

Phil

The purpose of the Bidding Prayer is not a light one. It is a solemn warning to all, to make peace with God & with our neighbors before we receive the Body & Blood of the Lord.
Luke’s links contain the information that you are asking about…
I would add that many of my friends & family are members of churches that believe in a “symbolic only” communion. I can assure you that if you were to attend one of their communions, & observe them, you would see the difference immediately!
God bless.

 

[Ric]

Chazemataz:

When, at the last supper, Jesus took the bread and gave thanks and broke it and handed it to His disciples, He said:“Take this all of you and eat it. This is my body which will be given up for you.” Then He did the same for the wine. He never said that it represents His body and blood, He said that it is literally His body and blood. He told them to do this in memory of Him. Protestant Churches do not say that the Eucharist is literally the body of Christ. They say it represents the body. In the Roman Catholic Church, the eucharist IS the Body Of Christ. That is why my grandpa converted from Methodist church to Catholic Church. When I asked my uncle, who is a very religious man why they do this, he couldn’t give an answer. My pastor Uncle couldn’t give an answer to this. How do you proetstants justify this?

The words in the verses where Jesus institutes the new covenant bear remarkable similarity to the rendition of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. This supports the reliability of Luke’s research (Luke 1:1-4). The suffering motif is consistent with Jesus’ understanding of his mission as the Suffering Servant.
“Gave thanks” translates the verb eucharisteo, the source of the word “Eucharist,” often used to signify the Lord’s Supper. Luke alone has “given for you” in the saying over the bread, as well as “poured out for you” in the cup saying.
“In remembrance of me” directs our attention primarily to the person of Christ and not merely to the benefits we receive from taking the bread and cup. The final cup taken during the Passover signifies the “new Covenant” in Jesus’ blood. The disciples would have been reminded in the Passover of the “blood of the covenant” (Exodus 24:8), i.e., the blood used ceremonially to confirm the covenant. The new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) carried with it assurance of forgiveness through Jesus’ blood shed on the cross and the inner work of the Holy Spirit in motivating us and enabling us to fulfill our covenantal responsibility.

Since the Supper was celebrated in connection with the Passover (Matther 26:17-29; Luke 22:7-20), we assume that the bread that was available was unleavened. Jesus gave thanks, as was the Jewish practice at a meal. The breaking of the bread was symbolic of Christ’s bruised body (Isaiah 53:5), “given for you” (Luke 22:19). The word “this” most naturally means in the context “this bread” that Christ was holding in his hand as a symbol to represent his body; the bread was not Christ’s body itself (somewhat similar figures in John 10:7; 1 Corinthians 10:4).

 

[jusher7281]

On my way:

Posting these questions to non-Catholics and/or Protestants will not do any good, because they don’t understand and believe in our Catholic Faith. All non-Catholics will insist that Catholics, due to our belief of the Eucharist, engage in cannibolism and violate the biblical prohibition on the drinking of blood. This misunderstanding is what led unbelieving Jews and disciples in John 6 to reject Jesus when He spoke about the need to eat his body and drink His blood. The disciples who believed were rewarded for thier Faith at the Last Supper.

Consider Christ’s use of the bread and wine in all four accounts (Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:17-20; and 1 Cor 11:23-25) Jesus tell us that this is my body and this is my blood. He never once spoke of it as being symbolic. If He was referring to His body and blood as as symbolic He would have clearly explained it but that was not the case, Jesus spoke literally, Which is the case.

JSUSSVSUS, you state that you are Christian, which makes me believe you are a non-Catholic which, I would guess makes you a Protestant. Tell me this. Didn’t Martin Luther once accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and didn’t he also affirm the doctrine also? Now tell me this also, Catholics have been around since the time of Jesus, Protestants didn’t come around until 1517, some 15 hundred years after Jesus. Now are you to tell me that your teachings are the Truth when most of your teachings are from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has over 2 thousand years of solid foundation(one Church). There are many other denoms. out there, but only 1 Catholic Church which has stood as the Real Church, always has always will. It is time you Protestants just accept the fact and come on HOME.

**AMEN, BROTHER!!! **

 

[O.S.Luke]

On my way:

Posting these questions to non-Catholics and/or Protestants will not do any good, because they don’t understand and believe in our Catholic Faith. All non-Catholics will insist that Catholics, due to our belief of the Eucharist, engage in cannibolism and violate the biblical prohibition on the drinking of blood. This misunderstanding is what led unbelieving Jews and disciples in John 6 to reject Jesus when He spoke about the need to eat his body and drink His blood. The disciples who believed were rewarded for thier Faith at the Last Supper.

Besides the fact that the above is simply WRONG, it is also IMO a highly bigoted thing to say, to lump all “non-Catholics” in the same category. The fact is that many, if not most, non-Catholics do NOT insist that Catholics are cannibals… and since my own tradition embraces the Real Presence of Christ, I would be calling myself a cannibal if I said such a thing about Catholics.

Posting these questions do some good… if they are offered with a right spirit. But sometimes bait-and-switch does happen here.

It is simply wrong and inaccurate to paint all non-Catholics with such a broad brush. But it seems to happen often enough on the Non-Catholic Forum.

O+