How do Protestants regard Jesus's words "This is my body. Do this in memory of me"?

[JonNC]

Blessings’ Jon

Consubstantiation is rejected all together by the Catholic Church defined in the Eucharist.

Transubstantiation is never defined by Trent or the CCC by metaphysics.

Transubstantiation substance by Catholic Church definition can never be measured or quantified. Those defining the Eucharist by metaphysical standards from transubstantiation are living their faith all wrong, according to Cardinal Ratzinger.

Transubstantiation only describes a change has occurred in the whole substance of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ “whole presence”.

After the consecration involving prayer, blessing and the Word of God faith for the Catholic begins and is manifested in the Amen when our Catholic “faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen”, because “through (our Catholic) faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” See Hebrews 11:1-3

Transubstantiation understood according to a metaphysical standard comes from a natural carnal mindset of understanding the mysteries of God." for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1Cor.2:14), Catholic faith “have recieved, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God” (1Cor.2:12)

Discernment of the true bodily presence of Jesus is described by the Catholic Church from a transubstantiation that describes “spiritual realities in spiritual terms”.

In conclusion a symbolic “spirit” does not exist in our world nor in eternity. That is why Jesus states to his doubting audience from John 6:63 “The words I speak to you are spirit and life; for it is the spirit that gives life while the (carnal) flesh is of no avail”.

Peace be with you Jon

Hi Gabriel. His peace also with you, my friend.

You know, I think what you say here is the underpinnings of the growing convergence in Lutheran/Catholic thought on the Eucharist, as expressed in the jint statement you and I have discussed before.

Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.
In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.
The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.
The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

As we view each other’s words of faith, we find increasingly much more in common than at odds. For me, Transubstantiation, in and of itself, is not an obstacle to unity.

Jon

 

[hn160]

In talks with my pastor about the Holy Supper, Lutherans wouldn’t have as much of a problem with transubstantiation as with concomitance.We believe that Christ’s Body is in the bread and His blood is in the wine.

 

[farallon]

Hi,

I was brought up in the Church of the Brethren and as such, cannot speak for all Protestants, but I can tell you how the Church of the Brethren views communion. In the COB, communion is celebrated a couple of times per year. One of those times is on the Thursday before Easter. On that day, in addition to the normal bread and wine, a “Love Feast” is served as a symbolic recreation of the Last Supper. The congregation gathers together and shares a simple meal of boiled beef, bread, and broth during which the elders of the church read the Gospel account of the Last Supper. Love Feast ends with communion and is followed by the washing of the feet. All are invited to participate. The entire ritual is thought of as a commemoration.

I hope that this is helpful.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

How do Protestants regard Jesus’s words “This is my body. This is my blood. Do this in memory of me”? How much gravity do you ascribe to the Eucharist? Are there any denominations that interpret His words as an invitation to dine with loved ones? What sources do you quote for these differences in interpretation? Sorry if these sound like dumb questions. Please state your denomination if you are comfortable. Thank you in advance.

They skirt around this blaring statement very gingerly - as if walking through a path in a field, sowed in landmines.

Any wrong step could potentially throw them into having to re-think their reticience to accepting that the Eucharist is what it is… the true and real presence of Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Oops! That means that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is also legit!! and…!!! the Catholic church is the one true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as it’s first pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. !!! And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.

That’s a lot of repercussions…some will stick to the path through the minefield…while others will come home to the true faith.

 

[englishredrose]

Not to play devil’s advocate, but Jesus never said, “Do this in remembrance of me four times a month.” I can’t honestly say why some denominations do it once a month and others do it daily. Does it matter?

I go to an anglican church, church of england which is what I tick in boxes and classed catholic. I myself have no real idea where i am especially having been going for 25 years i am now thinking outside the box a little through one very kind priest who has told me that we don’t need words to pray etc which is all quite catholic too but am trying to unlearn to relearn without typical labels and its hard going and struggling but i a much better level of God. I have been with God far more over the past two month than I have over the last 25 years since he has shown me how to simply be with God and backed it all up with sermon at which included my request to go over it again as such and I have been following things through online about verbal prayer and prayer requests etc which said everything that the priest has said which brought me back to God. I owe that priest my whole faith right now though I am struggling how to fit it in with church. he knows that too.

Celebrating the Lords Supper, the Eucharist, Mass, Holy Communion, we do every single Sunday and every day of the week accept his day off. On average about 3 or 4 people go to the said services. about 60 go to sunday service. We used to have evensong. Not so well attended. I actually think it quite sad that the only service most catholics go to is Mass. There are a wide range of services available but the one most talked about online here at least is Mass. Occaisional references to Adoration if lucky.

God is supposedly the centre of our lives and Mass is one way of worshipping God in the Church. Our church is no exception here. Though this morning he was talking about doing book of common prayer to bring prayer back into praying together or something.

I like your post because you have said does it matter? To many it does matter but the most important thing that matters is that we love God? (believe). I myself have no idea where I stand on questions like this. I know priests vary and in my early days they were very Catholic in their stance on the that Jesus is in the Bread and Wine upon Consecretation. I remember being bluntly told it couldn’t be anything else by one young faithful curate. Enough to keep my mouth shut and not bothered exploring it again. The present priest is refreshing as he really does allow us to explore our thoughts. Trouble is when there are no black and white answers. Exploring our thoughts for me just gets into one big tight knot and yes he has sat there and kind of unravelled a little for me.

On this I have said alot about it but will say nothing fixed because I want to know is that do you believe in God or do you Love God.

 

[maltmom]

Yes, Pentecostals tend to go longer periods without having communion. My church seems to have it annually at least. I believe that the Pentecostal Holiness Church observes quarterly communion. One reason is that we want to cultivate a respect for communion. By having it all the time, it loses value.

Unless you correct me, I’m going to interpret your last sentence to mean that if receiving communion on a regular basis one may forget the importance of the celebration and it would become routine and not special. I will have to disagree with you on this. I am a new Catholic, I’ve been going to Mass 3 or 4 times a week. The Eucharist, for me, will never lose it’s value. Not even if I received twice a day. As a Protestant I felt that we didn’t have communion often enough.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Doesn’t really matter because it relies on faith. If you send the wine and bread to a lab to have it tested, it will turn out to be wine and bread. It is not human flesh or human blood. To think that, you would need faith. It is a faith issue. I believe what Jesus said but without faith it is only symbolic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Of course they will.

 

[ltwin]

Unless you correct me, I’m going to interpret your last sentence to mean that if receiving communion on a regular basis one may forget the importance of the celebration and it would become routine and not special. I will have to disagree with you on this. I am a new Catholic, I’ve been going to Mass 3 or 4 times a week. The Eucharist, for me, will never lose it’s value. Not even if I received twice a day. As a Protestant I felt that we didn’t have communion often enough.

Yes, that is one explanation I have heard, that it would become routine or that people would began to take it as routine without preparing themselves to receive it worthily. I would agree with you, as a Protestant, I wish we had communion more often.

 

[JonNC]

Doesn’t really matter because it relies on faith. If you send the wine and bread to a lab to have it tested, it will turn out to be wine and bread. It is not human flesh or human blood. To think that, you would need faith. It is a faith issue. I believe what Jesus said but without faith it is only symbolic.

Well, the Lutheran position is that, since Christ says it is His body and blood, the fact that it is the body and blood is not dependent on the faith o the communicant or the celebrant. With or without faith, it is His body and blood.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes, that is one explanation I have heard, that it would become routine or that people would began to take it as routine without preparing themselves to receive it worthily. I would agree with you, as a Protestant, I wish we had communion more often.

I wonder if they feel the same about Bible readings, or the pastor’s sermon? I hear that sometimes, too, and often ask how His true body and blood, for the remission of sins can become “routine”.

Jon

 

[gcnuss]

I wonder if they feel the same about Bible readings, or the pastor’s sermon? I hear that sometimes, too, and often ask how His true body and blood, for the remission of sins can become “routine”.

Jon

One wonders how anyone could consider the presence of Christ to be “routine.”

 

[Reuben_J]

Doesn’t really matter because it relies on faith. If you send the wine and bread to a lab to have it tested, it will turn out to be wine and bread. It is not human flesh or human blood. To think that, you would need faith. It is a faith issue. I believe what Jesus said but without faith it is only symbolic.

That is what Catholics call Transubstantiation.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

How do Protestants regard Jesus’s words “This is my body. This is my blood. Do this in memory of me”?

In the same way we are to view all of Jesus’ words - in the context in which they were spoken.

 

[Boywonder23k]

They skirt around this blaring statement very gingerly - as if walking through a path in a field, sowed in landmines.

Any wrong step could potentially throw them into having to re-think their reticience to accepting that the Eucharist is what it is… the true and real presence of Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Oops! That means that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is also legit!! and…!!! the Catholic church is the one true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as it’s first pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. !!! And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.

That’s a lot of repercussions…some will stick to the path through the minefield…while others will come home to the true faith.

What?!? If the real presence is true it logically follows that the pope is infallible, Mary was bodily assumed into heaven and the mass “representing” Christs sacrifice is legit?

Protestants can accept the real presence without accepting everything Catholicism has to offer. Honestly there is only a relatively small slice of protestants who take a symbolic interpretation.

 

[JonNC]

What?!? If the real presence is true it logically follows that the pope is infallible, Mary was bodily assumed into heaven and the mass “representing” Christs sacrifice is legit?

Protestants can accept the real presence without accepting everything Catholicism has to offer. Honestly there is only a relatively small slice of protestants who take a symbolic interpretation.

It depends upon how one defines “symbolic”. I think that, sadly, it is more than a “relatively small slice”.

Jon

 

[JohnVIII]

How do Protestants regard Jesus’s words “This is my body. This is my blood. Do this in memory of me”? How much gravity do you ascribe to the Eucharist? Are there any denominations that interpret His words as an invitation to dine with loved ones? What sources do you quote for these differences in interpretation? Sorry if these sound like dumb questions. Please state your denomination if you are comfortable. Thank you in advance.

My personal views have changed so radically since I’ve been on this forum, I suppose I could now be classed as a “Protestant” - sort of. Anyway, let me tell you what I NOW think Transubstantiation really is. You eat the Bread and the Wine and as the digestion process proceeds it transubstantiats into your own flesh. This is how it becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus. You see you are the Body of Jesus! That is, the Body of Christ is you and me. St Paul makes it very clear what the Body of Christ is, and it is our flesh. Jesus has no flesh of His own, the only flesh that He has is our flesh. It was our bodies (made one in Christ) that were crucified on the Cross, and it is us that are dead to sin and the law so that we may be spiritually alive in Christ.

This is what Jesus meant when He said, “This is my Body . . . this is my Blood”, that it is not He that has a body all of His own, but rather His Body is us! And the end of this Body of flesh is to die. The flesh will not be raised again. If the body of the flesh were intended to be raised again then the Sacrament of the Lords Supper would have some sort of symbolism to it that would indicate a resurrection of the flesh. But the only symbolism there is the dead Body of the flesh - remaining dead. This is a good thing! Because with the death of the flesh (on the Cross) the law and sin is dead with it! If there were a resurrection of the flesh then the law and sin would also be raised up again - leading to spiritual death. But, thanks be to God, the body of the flesh dies (like a seed dies when it is planted) and the body of the spirit born (i.e. resurrected spiritually, like the plant that can only come forth and grow after the seed is planted). This too was all explained by St Paul.

God bless!

 

[Izdaari]

I am with an Episcopal/Lutheran parish (dual TEC/ELCA affiliation) that describes itself as “emerging” Anglo-Catholic with Benedictine influence. I believe in the Real Presence. Not as transubstantiation, but as an undefinable holy mystery. That’s a typical Anglican and Lutheran view, so I’m entirely “normal” for my church.

 

[ManOnFire]

In the same way we are to view all of Jesus’ words - in the context in which they were spoken.

“Context” sounds symbolic, unless extreme reverence would interpret his words as literal. So, I’m still confused how you are interpreting “This is my body. do this in memory of me.”

 

[summer1052]

Coming from the deep end of the church of Christ pool, I can tell you I was taught that it is a memorial only. Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me.” The c o C does NOT accept the Real Presence.

Since I’ve crossed the Tiber and reconciled, I have finally understood the concept of the Real Presence, and believe in it. (And what a glorious balm to the soul!)

The topic of the Real Presence is one I questioned in the c o C. My innocent questions, asked for the purpose of learning, made the Elders very angry, and landed me in hot bubbling boiling water. After asking a few more questions I couldn’t work out, that they couldn’t answer, I was dis-fellowshipped. (Excommunicated.)

But I also can follow the logic (based on errant assumptions) that leads to the c o C POV. Maybe this will help Catholics understand their logic.

The c o C is deeply entrenched in the idea of Scriptural Authority, more so than some other Protestants. And Scripture says, right there, quoting Jesus, saying, “Do this in memory of me.” So it’s only supposed to me a memorial, right? (Well . . .um,)

So how to explain the FIRST part of the statement? The part where Jesus says, "This IS my body. (My emphasis added.) I was taught in the c o C that the two statements work together, with Jesus explaining how the memorial worked, with the bread representing his body, and then the wine (grape juice) representing his blood. The focus is on the memorial, not the This Is part.

Besides, how could Jesus stand right there, hold bread in his hands, and have it be himself? That’s just not possible. That’s how the dots are connected from A to B.

For myself, I believe in the Real Presence, and I could never wrap my head around the memorial only part. First of all, I don’t think it’s impossible for Jesus to hand out bread that is also his body in the first Eucharist. I don’t think anything is impossible for God. Second, the statement This Is, strikes me as being very much in line with the statement I Am.

Jesus didn’t say, this represents me, or this is only for my memory, this will be me in essence, this will contain me, he said This Is. Do This. In memory of Me. It’s Him, and a memorial of Him. Do I really grasp the metaphysical mechanism of how that works?

No. But I know it to be true. I don’t grasp calculus, either, but I know it to be true. I don’t grasp how I embraced my husband, and two cells merged to become four, to eight, to sixteen, to become my beautiful daughter, but I know it did. I don’t grasp how the light appears when I hit the switch, but I see it. And then there’s the whole subject of Eucharistic Miracles . . .

Protestantism as a whole, is a child of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, Rationalism, and Skepticism. Therefore, the idea of a memorial only fits very tidily into the system. Protestants accept miracles, but they struggle with Mystery. I think it all magnifies the Glory of God! The truth of the Real Presence is not dependent on my ability to understand it. And, thank God!

Summer