How do Protestants and non-catholics alike believe they are in the New Covenant Jesus instituted by his body and blood, when most do not accept Jesus

[Gabriel_of_12]

If you are a Protestant or non-catholic, how do you enter into the New Covenant with God if you dont eat Jesus body, and drink his blood in the Eucharist?

Catholics have been consuming the body and blood in his Eucharist since the last supper. There are many first, second century Christians throughout the ages up to today who have believed and practiced partaking of the True body and blood of Jesus in his Eucharist of bread and wine.

Catholics believe we are partakers of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity through the sacramental lifestyle Jesus instituted. Peter reveals this from his Epistle:

2 Peter 1: 4 Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature,

The following are scriptures pertaining to the new covenant commanded by Jesus himself. How does your christian community enter into the New Covenant with God? Can you please explain your Christian interpretation to the following scriptures, and by what authority do you arrive at your interpretation?

Luke 22: 19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
20 **And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you. **
John 6: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, "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.
54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? .
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

1 Corinthians 11: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

Can you provide scriptural proof for your doctrine to enter into the new covenant with the living God?

Can you distinguish the difference between the Kingdom of God and the New Covenant?

Catholics replies are most welcome

Peace be with you

 

[Ag_not]

Are you going for the longest question ever posted in a thread title competition?
I think you should enter - you’d do very well.

As to the question - I have been wondering that. Many non catholic churches dont celebrate the Eucharist. I’m interested in their replies as it seems to me that surely the partaking of the Lords Supper is right at the very heart of what it means to be a Christian.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Are you going for the longest question ever posted in a thread title competition?
I think you should enter - you’d do very well.

As to the question - I have been wondering that. Many non catholic churches dont celebrate the Eucharist. I’m interested in their replies as it seems to me that surely the partaking of the Lords Supper is right at the very heart of what it means to be a Christian.

Thanks for the nomination:thumbsup: but I was trying to clarify with scripture references thus lengthened the question. I dont know if it still qualifies me for the nomination.

What is more interesting to me is to understand the belief’s or opinions of the difference between the Kingdom of God, and Covenant?

 

[tGette]

What I do not understand is that, despite Protestant belief in Communion as symbolic, why they do not celebrate Communion every week. Granted, there are some churches that do, but it seems bizarre to me.

Also, even though they believe it to be symbolic, I feel like it lacks reverence. I know a lot of churches where what is left over is just thrown in the trash, or thrown in the woods for animals to eat. One time at my old church they did Communion from one loaf once (instead of little squares cut up like normal) and the crumbs all over the floor made me sad inside.

Though I do not understand how/why they can not interpret this Bible verse the way most Christians do, it still should be held with such deep reverence. Jesus commanded us to do something and it has become a monthly or season thing.

I am saying more than I thought:

Another thing that gets me is, **imagine being one of the Apostles! ** This Man is telling you “this is My Body”. It seems like the Scriptures would have told us if this was not meant to be taken literally. It seems like something should have been written to expound upon this and explain it.

He also says, “which will be shed for you”, referring to an event to come. (Does anyone really need me to say what that event is?)

Jesus changed the Passover meal, well he fulfilled it…with Himself!

OK…I am going to start getting off on a tangent. It just boggles my mind how people think this is meant to be taken as “just another parable”

 

[ralphinal]

I want to point out that, in fairness to all, many, if not most, mainline Protestant groups DO have a concept of the Real Presence. It may not be exactly like ours, but they have one.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What I do not understand is that, despite Protestant belief in Communion as symbolic, why they do not celebrate Communion every week. Granted, there are some churches that do, but it seems bizarre to me.

Also, even though they believe it to be symbolic, I feel like it lacks reverence. I know a lot of churches where what is left over is just thrown in the trash, or thrown in the woods for animals to eat. One time at my old church they did Communion from one loaf once (instead of little squares cut up like normal) and the crumbs all over the floor made me sad inside.

Though I do not understand how/why they can not interpret this Bible verse the way most Christians do, it still should be held with such deep reverence. Jesus commanded us to do something and it has become a monthly or season thing.

I am saying more than I thought:

Another thing that gets me is, **imagine being one of the Apostles! ** This Man is telling you “this is My Body”. It seems like the Scriptures would have told us if this was not meant to be taken literally. It seems like something should have been written to expound upon this and explain it.

Gabriel of 12
St. Paul referenced the body and blood of Christ as Literal in 1Cor.11… followed by a curse…which was provided in the post. Your right, scripture never speaks of the body, blood of Jesus Christ to mean symbolic, not to mention “Spirit” also is never spoken of as symbolic in scripture.

He also says, “which will be shed for you”, referring to an event to come. (Does anyone really need me to say what that event is?)

Jesus changed the Passover meal, well he fulfilled it…with Himself!

**Gabriel of 12
It is so amazing how Jesus according to John the Baptist is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world before Jesus started his ministry to calvary. What is more in the passover you had to eat the lamb, to celebrate it according to the levitical laws and Commandment. Makes sense why Jesus commands in the new covenant we must “eat my body and drink my blood in rememberance of Me”, the same rememberance (to make present) wording used in the perpetual Law of the passover now perpetually fulfilled in Jesus Christ, that is why Jesus is the Lamb standing as though slain before The throne of God (Revelations) as our eternal perpetual Lamb sacrifice, that is why we consume the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. “The once and for all = always”

Now I am starting to ramble:blush:

Peace be with you**

 

[Luke65]

tGette;4338752:

Gabriel of 12
It is so amazing how Jesus according to John the Baptist is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world before Jesus started his ministry to calvary. What is more in the passover you had to eat the lamb, to celebrate it according to the levitical laws and Commandment.

And don’t forget this:

“For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” (1 Corinthians 5:7)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

And don’t forget this:

“For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” (1 Corinthians 5:7)

True, now that the sacrificial lamb has been sacrificed what takes place next? The holocaust victim has to be consumed by the fire from heaven and rise into heaven (Jesus gives up the Spirit on the Crucifix, and resurrects to ascend into heaven, what is left for the New Covenant people of God, must be consumed (eaten) by the Royal High Priest family only. Thus the Eucharist body, blood of Jesus Christ has to be brought to “rememberance” for all ages.

 

[With_Questions]

So let me get this straight.

And Catholicism believes that all who do not celebrate the eucharist per Catholic theology are outside of the New Covenant? This I would assume to be all Protestants since even those that believe in the Real Presence have an invalid priesthood per Catholicism?

I thought Catholicism believed that Protestants were within the New Covenant by virtue of their trinitarian baptism. I guess I was mistaken.

I learn something new all of the time.

 

[JonNC]

This I would assume to be all Protestants since even those that believe in the Real Presence have an invalid priesthood per Catholicism?

This, of course, is the real backgound issue. Lutherans, most Anglicans, and some others hold to the real presence. but the Catholic Church maintains our clergy are not valid.

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml#9

1. Our affirmations about ordained ministry go together with our affirmations about our communities (see §§85-89), for ministry parallels the ordering of the church. If real but imperfect recognition exists between our ministers and our communities, neither community can lack churchly reality. Movement toward deeper mutual recognition of our ministries is both rooted in and contributes to our growing sense of the ecclesial reality of each of our communities. In particular, the Catholic non-recognition of Lutheran ministries has hindered Catholic affirmation of the Lutheran churches as churches. If our proposal for deeper mutual recognition of ministries is accepted, then new possibilities should open for reconsideration of mutual recognition as churches. Mutual recognition of our churches and ministries need not be an all-or-nothing matter.(157)

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.(166)

My prayer is that Cardinal Ratzinger carries these sentiments into his pontificate.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

First, the validity of the orders is not as big an issue as far as the understanding of the rank and fiel member. If the denomination has an understanding of the real presence, that is wonderful The order issue is for another thread.

Second, it is through baptism that we are brought into the Family of Christ that is the Church. Not through the Eucharist. It is through baptism that we become heirs and that we are joined to the death and ressurection of Jesus. This is scriptural and Catholic Teaching.

Now, those who do not receive Christ in the Eucharist deprive themselves of a unity with God that even angels do not have. That does not mean that they are not Christian or that they are not a part of the Covenant.

What did Jesus say a man must do to be saved?

 

[Glorfindel]

I want to point out that, in fairness to all, many, if not most, mainline Protestant groups DO have a concept of the Real Presence. It may not be exactly like ours, but they have one.

Amen! In the Anglican body we believe that in some sense Christ is Present in the Blessed Sacrament and we treat it with high respect, we do not “define” what the Presence takes, we refer to it as a Great and Sacred mystery by which the children of God are fed and nourished.

 

[With_Questions]

First, the validity of the orders is not as big an issue as far as the understanding of the rank and fiel member. If the denomination has an understanding of the real presence, that is wonderful The order issue is for another thread.

Now this I really don’t understand.

If Protestants have no real presence anyway because their orders are not valid, what does it matter what they believe about it. It ain’t happening for them anyway. It’s just bread and wine (or grape juice) to them be they Anglican, Lutheran, or Baptist.

Second, it is through baptism that we are brought into the Family of Christ that is the Church. Not through the Eucharist. It is through baptism that we become heirs and that we are joined to the death and ressurection of Jesus. This is scriptural and Catholic Teaching.

Well that is what I thought the Catholic Church believed.

Golly, this sounds like the New Covenant to me, too

It sounds like you disagree with the primary assumption of this thread.

Now, those who do not receive Christ in the Eucharist deprive themselves of a unity with God that even angels do not have.

Of course this would be all Protestants because their orders are not valid.

Hmm, if Catholics have a special unity with God that it is impossible for Protestants to have, I would expect that Catholicism would manifest itself as a clearly superior faith in the nitty-gritty of every day life.

I must say that if you can convince Protestants through the outworking of your lives that they see Christ in you in a way that the Protestants do not have, that would be convincing.

I will leave it to others to determine in their own hearts whether they see Catholicism in that way.

That does not mean that they are not Christian or that they are not a part of the Covenant.

That is what I thought Catholicism believed. Sounds like you disagree with the assumption of this thread.

What did Jesus say a man must do to be saved?

Oh John 3:16 comes to mind.

 

[ralphinal]

Now this I really don’t understand.

If Protestants have no real presence anyway because their orders are not valid, what does it matter what they believe about it. It ain’t happening for them anyway. It’s just bread and wine (or grape juice) to them be they Anglican, Lutheran, or Baptist.

My thoughts on this are simple. They do not have it fully but they understand what it is and why they want it. It is just one more step to be there. Besides, the guy in the pew has nothing to do with the validity of the orders. Even my priest may not be validly ordained.

Well that is what I thought the Catholic Church believed.

Golly, this sounds like the New Covenant to me, too

It sounds like you disagree with the primary assumption of this thread.

I think you are on to something

What, me disagree with another Catholic? I have been accused of that on the other thread like this, too.

Of course this would be all Protestants because their orders are not valid.

Yes and no. I am not sure that you can blaim them 100% for not knowing that they are missing it.

Hmm, if Catholics have a special unity with God that it is impossible for Protestants to have, I would expect that Catholicism would manifest itself as a clearly superior faith in the nitty-gritty of every day life.

I must say that if you can convince Protestants through the outworking of your lives that they see Christ in you in a way that the Protestants do not have, that would be convincing.

I will leave it to others to determine in their own hearts whether they see Catholicism in that way.

We never said that we were no longer sinners. We have way to many living humans in our Church, so we have way too many hypocrits. I wish I could claim otherwise. We, too, have fallen short of the Gosple that we have been given.

You cannot hold that against the Church or against Christ.

That is what I thought Catholicism believed. Sounds like you disagree with the assumption of this thread.

Oh John 3:16 comes to mind.

THere you go.

 

[JonNC]

Second, it is through baptism that we are brought into the Family of Christ that is the Church. Not through the Eucharist. It is through baptism that we become heirs and that we are joined to the death and ressurection of Jesus. This is scriptural and Catholic Teaching.

I allowed my earlier post to drift from the OP’s intent.
This I completely agree with.
Jon

 

[stbruderklaus]

I agree that the discussion of valid orders is likely best suited to another thread… however, as it touches on the Eucharist, it must be teased out at least a little.

Validity, from both a Roman and Orthodox position, speaks of proper form, material, and intent. Whether Romans recognize Protestant orders or not, there are ample arguments that non-Roman Christians ordain their pastors/priests/bishops with all three. Even in a strict sense, the Roman criteria for validity are maintained in a number of non-Roman communions… many of those in Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican communions.

For example, my consecration as a priest included validly consecrated bishops who are recognized as such by both Rome and the East, by Anglicans and a couple other jurisdictions. We are Lutheran in our confession of the faith, and I assure you, when we confect the Sacraments, they are quite valid… though they may not be licit for the Romans.

Even with this, I do not hold my ordination as superior to other Christian pastors who do not have the benefit of Apostolic Succession through the Historic Episcopate. Most of my other Lutheran counterparts have been ordained by other pastors… and as such, the hands placed on them in the context of the Church has been unbroken back to the Apostles as well. Let us not forget that even Rome has acknowledged the potential validity of presbyterial ordination, though it is not the licit practice today… even St. Jerome contended that the powers of the office of the priest and the bishop differ in no way other than jurisdiction. If I were to be really radical, I’d offer that no Christian becomes a Christian without the hands of other Christians applied to them in both Baptism and Confirmation… which might even make valid the consecration of a pastor by nothing more than the assembly of the saints who intended to ordain him.

Anyway, for Christians of non-Roman communions, with valid pastors and the faith / intent to confect the Sacraments, one must be very careful before declaring them invalid. Pope Benedict, being a much more careful theologian and pastor, was not so brazen as the claims made here… good fellow, that Pope. I would think it one of the greatest honors of my life to take communion with him… but if not in this world, then in the next.

By the way… a contention was made above that if Roman catholics could live the faith better, perhaps non-Romans would be drawn to them. Perhaps the better challenge is to work to reflect Christ in each of our communions, and then look for the marks of Christ among ourselves and each other. Perhaps then we will find our unity in Christ, rather than in our man-made social structures. Frankly, the fact that so many Christians have refused each other Eucharistic fellowship is staggering to my mind… especially when we note that we are all part of the same Christ and the same Church by our Baptism-- thus we impose division where the Spirit of God has created unity.

Grace and peace.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I want to point out that, in fairness to all, many, if not most, mainline Protestant groups DO have a concept of the Real Presence. It may not be exactly like ours, but they have one.

Very good point; but then comes the discussion of a valid Eucharist and valid priesthood who can confect the Species of bread and wine?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So let me get this straight.

And Catholicism believes that all who do not celebrate the eucharist per Catholic theology are outside of the New Covenant? This I would assume to be all Protestants since even those that believe in the Real Presence have an invalid priesthood per Catholicism?

I thought Catholicism believed that Protestants were within the New Covenant by virtue of their trinitarian baptism. I guess I was mistaken.

I learn something new all of the time.

Can you explain the difference between the kingdom of God and the New covenant? Maybe addressing this question can help us understand baptism into the Kingdom, and the family of the Royal priesthood in Jesus new covenant?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This, of course, is the real backgound issue. Lutherans, most Anglicans, and some others hold to the real presence. but the Catholic Church maintains our clergy are not valid.

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml#9

Jon

Validity is a topic that can be corrected. The question of how? In my opinion The Catholic church cannot change what Jesus himself instituted. I believe starting from this point Catholics and Protestants who practice the true presence can find validity in the sacrament.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

First, the validity of the orders is not as big an issue as far as the understanding of the rank and fiel member. If the denomination has an understanding of the real presence, that is wonderful The order issue is for another thread.

Second, it is through baptism that we are brought into the Family of Christ that is the Church. Not through the Eucharist. It is through baptism that we become heirs and that we are joined to the death and ressurection of Jesus. This is scriptural and Catholic Teaching.

Now, those who do not receive Christ in the Eucharist deprive themselves of a unity with God that even angels do not have. That does not mean that they are not Christian or that they are not a part of the Covenant.

What did Jesus say a man must do to be saved?

Jesus states you must be born (anothen) from above, by water and the Spirit (baptism) is the gateway into the Kingdom of God.

Then Jesus states in the Gospels, we have to eat his body, drink his blood in the new covenant to have everlastin life.

What is kingdom and what is covenant? Do protestants or noncatholics view these two as the same or difference?