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

[Maryann_C]

Hi, Maryann,

There is this rumor … … that a well-know polling organization has been assigned to a position at the Pearly Gates! And there will be this last set of questions - about the Last Ends (they can skip over the one about death…) So far, half don’t believe they will be judged or that there is a Hell, a few don’t believe in God!!

So, far, St Peter has gotten a chuckle and the polling group is starting to see that Heaven is not run by a show of hands!

In John 6, we find virtually all of Christ’s listeners walked out on Him! The show of hands has never been a real indicator of what is Truth.

God bless

Exactly truth is unmovable because it comes from the unmoved mover.

 

[benjohnson]

Lutheran teaching seems to depend on what part of the Lutheran Church you are with.

That’s a fair critique. Some Lutheran churches practice poor theology, in my travels, I would say that about 10% of Lutheran churches are losing their way. Unfortunately, they tend to be the most vocal. Lutherans do need to come together and encourage each other to look to original and valid sources to help clarify erroneous teaching.

Usually it’s the metropolitan ELCA churches, but there are some nominally-affliated ELCA churches that just ignore the craziness coming from the ELCA leadership who is doing it’s best attempt to emulate the silliness that occurred after V2.

I ask you to keep in mind that there are plenty of Lutheran churches that are closer to SSPX than they are to Jerry Falwell.

 

[benjohnson]

The show of hands has never been a real indicator of what is Truth.

God bless

You are, of course, correct.

But I seem to recall that Papal Infallibility isn’t quite perfect as well, and even some modern Catholics seem to have had to make a science of determining Authentic Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium just to find the truth.

Not to beat up my fellow Lutherans, but the ELCA is really in a crisis now that they seem to think that doctrine is to be determined by vote. Some of the new doctrine I agree with, but I despise the method they are using to come up with it as it will certainly lead to gross error.

I don’t know where the answer lies for me - I would say that deferring to valid Authority is the correct way provided that the laity learns enough to determine if that Authority has gone greviously astray.

 

[Pine4Jesus]

I believe that protestant problems with that are far less than muslims. They refute Jesus as God but have a solid following among CAF leadership.

 

[benjohnson]

Believing what was said, takes faith. Understanding what was said, however, takes comprehension.

Thanks for the wisdom.

For me, I finding it easier to faithfully accept the True Body and Blood of christ when I don’t ruminate on trying to comprehend the metaphysical details of it. For me, logical comprehension of this matter doesn’t increase my love, desire, faith or appreciation for God’s most personal sacrifice.

I pride myself on being smart, but my intelligence fails in this matter to augment my faith.

Perhaps for me, this is a blessing, as it seems to indicate that there are limits to my comprehension of God and it brings me around to simple Faith again. Would it not be nice to have the simple Faith of a child?

I thank God for leading me to that Faith in spite of myself.

 

[Nicea325]

Traverse:

I’m not saying it’s irrelevant because it goes against my traditions. I said it was irrelevant because you were using statements by the church fathers as arguments for the real presence. It’s an argument that they believed in the real presence, sure, but it’s not an argument that the real presence is accurate. Why? Because their writings are not inspired scripture.

No offense.but your argument holds no validity at all. If you’re claiming that the ECF’s belief in the Real Presence is not accurate,then your words also apply to their defense of Jesus’ incarnation,the Trinity,resurrection,Heaven,Hell,etc. More important, writings outside of the NT in defense of orthodox doctrines are no where binded to the Bible-only. Show me where scripture teaches everything must be said and taught from the Bible,including historical writings in defense of Christianity?

I also didn’t say they were used to preach doctrine, but you are using them for that purpose.

Ah yes! Again, tell me what other writings in defense of orthodox doctrines is one to use outside of the NT? It also would mean as Istated before, your dismissal of the very same men defending other orthodox teachings.

I don’t disagree that the first Christians did not have the NT and heard preaching from the mouths of Apostles (and those gifted with spiritual gifts) on matters of doctrine. I never said that didn’t happen. I never said any such thing here that you are implying.

But you are implying that NO writing outside the NT is even worth considering or “accurate” as you claimed.

All I said was that arguing from the perspective of the church fathers is not very helpful because, while interesting writings, they do not speak from a position of divine authority.

Not true at all! How do you believe we got our orthodox doctrines? What instruments of God defined and ratified such doctrines? Those very men were hard-core orthodox Christians and evidently the Holy Spirit gave them the spiritual wisdom and knowledge to understand God and His nature. Simply because they did not write scripture does not mean they were not being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Why do you insist I lack knowledge and comprehension of their works in such a snide way? I told you myself that I am not very familiar with the works of the church fathers. And how does this translate into a lack of comprehension? I haven’t tried to tell you what they’ve said. I’ve only told you that what they say is not relevant to our discussion.

Seriously? Not to be rude. You flat out dismiss them as not being accurate. I am sorry,but even the most intelligent Protestant theologians and scripture scholars accept and acknowledge their great works. Shoot! Even my NKJV Study Bible constantly refers to them.

Does that mean the church fathers are never relevant? Of course not. But here, where we are discussing the concept of the real presence from biblical passages, bringing in the equivalent of a bible commentary doesn’t really prove your point more. It just proves that someone else agrees with you.

Precisely! I have given scriptural passages and men in defense of the RP from the get-go. It just proves someone else agrees with me? Well I got news for you,I am sure you agree with them about the Trinity-right? By the way, I would like to read one writing outside of the NT prior to year 1,000 someone teaching that the RP is heretical or false?

I’m sorry to jump on you like this, but I’m weary of being called dismissive and un-knowledgeable just because I make points you disagree with. I’m not doing that to you. I’m replying to your points, making my own comments, but in response you’re basically just calling me stupid. Thanks?

Not trying to insult you,but your argument against the ECF’s is rather baseless,because whether you admit it or not,they too agree with you on many of the orthodox teachings.

 

[Traverse]

Nicea, well put. I just want to point out that I appreciate your post and you make some good points. I feel the need to say that after calling you out for being rude before. I understand you’re not trying to be.

If you’re claiming that the ECF’s belief in the Real Presence is not accurate,then your words also apply to their defense of Jesus’ incarnation,the Trinity,resurrection,Heaven,Hell,etc. More important, writings outside of the NT in defense of orthodox doctrines are no where binded to the Bible-only. Show me where scripture teaches everything must be said and taught from the Bible,including historical writings in defense of Christianity?

I see where your logic is going with this, but I don’t fully understand. The Trinity, ressurection, Heaven, Hell, etc are all biblically based doctrines. The Real Presence, while you believe it is biblical, is something I’m arguing is not. So I feel the real debate revolves around what the bible says (which we disagree on, I’m aware) and not what the church fathers said.

And as I said before, I heaven’t read much of the church fathers. What I have read is them saying “and the bread is His body and the wine is His blood” and not going into much detail. It’s not even a statement I disagree with, but the concept of transubstantiation goes deeper than a spiritual symbol. Now I’m not saying NO church father goes into greater detail, but I’m saying I haven’t seen it.

On the bright side, this thread has inspired me to find a collection of church father writings and read them in more detail, so you can perhaps feel proud of yourself for that. I certainly know I can’t properly discuss matters with my catholic friends or acquaintances unless I have the same information they do.

Again, tell me what other writings in defense of orthodox doctrines is one to use outside of the NT? It also would mean as Istated before, your dismissal of the very same men defending other orthodox teachings.

But you are implying that NO writing outside the NT is even worth considering or “accurate” as you claimed.

That’s roughly correct, yes. I don’t think we need anything outside of the bible, but I must clarify that I don’t think we need anything outside of the bible today. I’m aware that the bible was not instantly completed and the church was established before the bible was compiled together and complete. Oral tradition had a very good purpose back then. I’m only suggesting that it was a temporary purpose and that now we have the bible we don’t need it anymore.

Not true at all! How do you believe we got our orthodox doctrines? What instruments of God defined and ratified such doctrines? Those very men were hard-core orthodox Christians and evidently the Holy Spirit gave them the spiritual wisdom and knowledge to understand God and His nature. Simply because they did not write scripture does not mean they were not being guided by the Holy Spirit.

I pretty much answer this above. I’m familiar with maybe one or two church father writings written around 90 or 110 AD, but the rest are much older and I would argue that the time for public revelation had by then ceased because the bible had been completed. Though it was not cannonized by the catholic church until much later, I certainly don’t believe that was the first time anyone had had a complete work of scripture so much as it was the catholic church trying to confirm what was already in existence and deny false gospels.

Seriously? Not to be rude. You flat out dismiss them as not being accurate. I am sorry,but even the most intelligent Protestant theologians and scripture scholars accept and acknowledge their great works.

To be fair, I don’t dismiss the church fathers’ writings as inaccurate. I just don’t think they’re pertinent to this discussion because they are not actual biblical writings. Back then people had the apostles to listen to, and those speaking in tongues, and those gifted with prophecy and so on, but today we don’t. (I’m not sure on the catholic belief in those gifts being temporary or not… if you believe they are still with us today that would explain a lot about how differently we’re looking at this subject). Since I don’t believe those same gifts exist today, we only have the bible to use today for our ultimate authority.

Precisely! I have given scriptural passages and men in defense of the RP from the get-go. It just proves someone else agrees with me? Well I got news for you,I am sure you agree with them about the Trinity-right? By the way, I would like to read one writing outside of the NT prior to year 1,000 someone teaching that the RP is heretical or false?

I’ve touched on this a bit, but I’ll just add that I don’t see how it’s necessary to find a writing from a church father where he disputes the real presence. I’m sure you’d agree there were many more christians than we have writings of so what we have is actually a very small sample of the whole. The lack of a church father commenting negatively on the real presence doesn’t seem like it’s that important. However, as I have been inspired to sit down and study their writings (do you have a book collection you’d recommend) I’ll be sure to point something out if I come across it.

In conclusion, I just don’t understand how being in agreement with the church fathers about the trinity, for example, has any bearing on the teachings of the real presence. We agree on many doctrinal issues as well, I know we do because you’re catholic and my beliefs mostly differ on the real presence and what I see as ritualistic traditions. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with me on everything because you believe the same thing I do about the trinity.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Maryann C
Lutheran teaching seems to depend on what part of the Lutheran Church you are with.

That’s a fair critique. Some Lutheran churches practice poor theology, in my travels, I would say that about 10% of Lutheran churches are losing their way. Unfortunately, they tend to be the most vocal. Lutherans do need to come together and encourage each other to look to original and valid sources to help clarify erroneous teaching.

Usually it’s the metropolitan ELCA churches, but there are some nominally-affliated ELCA churches that just ignore the craziness coming from the ELCA leadership who is doing it’s best attempt to emulate the silliness that occurred after V2.

I ask you to keep in mind that there are plenty of Lutheran churches that are closer to SSPX than they are to Jerry Falwell.

It seems not a fair critique when regards the Lord’s Supper. No Lutheran I know denies the real presence. Ben, do you know a Lutheran synod that denies the RP?
To be sure, some Lutherans may incorrectly describe it as consubstantiation, but that’s just poor catechesis.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benjohnson,

“…Papal Infallibility isn’t quite perfect…” now, you know I could not let that pass unchallenged… And, just to be sure we are on the same page on this - we are talking about Christ’s promising that His Spirit will lead His Church to all Truth (John 16:13). Every infallable determination of Faith - from Peter’s decision that circumcision is not required to follow Christ (Acts 15) onwards to the present day. So, if you have knowledge of some sort of ‘less than perfect determination of Faith made by the Catholic Church’ - please enlighten me.

As you know, throughout the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church, people have tried to promote novel doctrines. Beginning with Judiazers right through to today, as I am sure you know. You yourself are lamenting the gross error novel doctrines are having - and from my perspective it seems that the only course for error is either futher compounding or a return to the Truth.

This is not a case of beating up on anyone or any group - just a honest realization of what is going on and where it can only lead.

God bless

That’s a fair critique. Some Lutheran churches practice poor theology, in my travels, I would say that about 10% of Lutheran churches are losing their way. Unfortunately, they tend to be the most vocal. Lutherans do need to come together and encourage each other to look to original and valid sources to help clarify erroneous teaching.

Usually it’s the metropolitan ELCA churches, but there are some nominally-affliated ELCA churches that just ignore the craziness coming from the ELCA leadership who is doing it’s best attempt to emulate the silliness that occurred after V2.

I ask you to keep in mind that there are plenty of Lutheran churches that are closer to SSPX than they are to Jerry Falwell.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

In my opinon, there are really two elements that must be joined.

The first is that there is a genuine belief that Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity- is physically present under the appearance of Bread and Wine when properly consecrated.

The second is that there must be a proper consecration by authorized priests.

As you know, there are many Protestants who do not believe the first item - there is no RP, only a memorial service for some, a meal break for others or just a social event that is held

But, belief that such a miraculous change can take place does not make it take place unless there is a properly ordained priest. Christ did not grant this Power to everyone - and those who have separated from the direct line of the Apostles do not have Power. Father Luther lead your group away from Christ’s Church and the valid sacraments.

It is simply a matter of realizing that mere recitation of the words do not by themselves bring about the effect.

God bless

It seems not a fair critique when regards the Lord’s Supper. No Lutheran I know denies the real presence. Ben, do you know a Lutheran synod that denies the RP?
To be sure, some Lutherans may incorrectly describe it as consubstantiation, but that’s just poor catechesis.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC,

In my opinon, there are really two elements that must be joined.

 

[Nicea325]

Traverse:

I see where your logic is going with this, but I don’t fully understand. The Trinity, ressurection, Heaven, Hell, etc are all biblically based doctrines. The Real Presence, while you believe it is biblical, is something I’m arguing is not. So I feel the real debate revolves around what the bible says (which we disagree on, I’m aware) and not what the church fathers said.

What I do not understand is your constant refusal to accept their works as legit. The RP is biblical,because Jesus could not be more clear than John Ch.6. As I said once and I’ll say it again,if the RP is false,then show me ONE writing in the NT or outside stating it is false or unbliblical? Name one Apostles stating Jesus incarnation is false? Or the Trinity?

And as I said before, I heaven’t read much of the church fathers. What I have read is them saying “and the bread is His body and the wine is His blood” and not going into much detail. It’s not even a statement I disagree with, but the concept of transubstantiation goes deeper than a spiritual symbol. Now I’m not saying NO church father goes into greater detail, but I’m saying I haven’t seen it.

And how many go in-depth explaining how heretical or the falsehod of the RP? Here is where your belief in a symbolic Eucharist is very weak,including Scripture as I already demonstrated from the Bible.

On the bright side, this thread has inspired me to find a collection of church father writings and read them in more detail, so you can perhaps feel proud of yourself for that. I certainly know I can’t properly discuss matters with my catholic friends or acquaintances unless I have the same information they do.

Well glad to hear. What I cannot comprehend is how you fail to see their defense of orthodox doctrines,including the RP.

That’s roughly correct, yes. I don’t think we need anything outside of the bible, but I must clarify that I don’t think we need anything outside of the bible today. I’m aware that the bible was not instantly completed and the church was established before the bible was compiled together and complete. Oral tradition had a very good purpose back then. I’m only suggesting that it was a temporary purpose and that now we have the bible we don’t need it anymore.

I am sorry,but here is where I believe you are in grave error. You are basically throwing out the baby with the bath water. If we do not NEED ANYTHING outside the Bible,then I recommend we also throw out Christ Church,since all we NEED is the Bible-right?

I pretty much answer this above. I’m familiar with maybe one or two church father writings written around 90 or 110 AD, but the rest are much older and I would argue that the time for public revelation had by then ceased because the bible had been completed. Though it was not cannonized by the catholic church until much later, I certainly don’t believe that was the first time anyone had had a complete work of scripture so much as it was the catholic church trying to confirm what was already in existence and deny false gospels.

Sorry,but your understanding of public revelation ceasing to exist is faulty. Public revelation did not cease because the Bible had been completed,show me where the Bible explicitly makes this declaration? No! It ceased with the death of the last Apostle.

To be fair, I don’t dismiss the church fathers’ writings as inaccurate. I just don’t think they’re pertinent to this discussion because they are not actual biblical writings.

Again,you keep on insisting they are not important in defense of orthodox teachings. I’ll ask again,show me where Jesus or the 12 or the Bible states everything must be said and taught from the Bible-only? By the way, you are also dismissing Apostolic Traditions which is included in the Bible,thus it preceded the Bible.

Back then people had the apostles to listen to, and those speaking in tongues, and those gifted with prophecy and so on, but today we don’t. (I’m not sure on the catholic belief in those gifts being temporary or not… if you believe they are still with us today that would explain a lot about how differently we’re looking at this subject). Since I don’t believe those same gifts exist today, we only have the bible to use today for our ultimate authority.

Show me where scripture explicitly states it is the **ultimate **authority? You can forget 2 Tim 3:16 which has been rebuked a million times over. I want to read the word “ultimate” authority on all matters of faith and morals.

I’ve touched on this a bit, but I’ll just add that I don’t see how it’s necessary to find a writing from a church father where he disputes the real presence. I’m sure you’d agree there were many more christians than we have writings of so what we have is actually a very small sample of the whole.

Which begs the question: If the church fathers were a very “small sample” of the whole,then it must mean we might not be following the true “orthodox” teachings.

The lack of a church father commenting negatively on the real presence doesn’t seem like it’s that important. However, as I have been inspired to sit down and study their writings (do you have a book collection you’d recommend) I’ll be sure to point something out if I come across it

But my friend, it is important to know they said nothing negative about the RP. Don’t you find it at odds they attacked false and heretical teachings,yet if the RP were false,they ignore it completely?

 

[ProVobis]

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

Depends on what they mean by “this.” In the Latin there is a difference between “hic,” “hoc,” “haec,” “hunc,” “huic,” “hanc,” “hac.” In the English it becomes more vague as all those Latin demonstrative pronouns translate to “this”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC

We certainly do agree on a lot! Now, let me see if I can address that pesky disagreement item.

Agreed, and the Lutheran confessions agree. The question, of course, is what the definition of “authorized” is. We acknowledge that yours are. You don’t share that acknowledgement of ours. And yet, even Cardinal Ratzinger recognized the “salvation granting presence” of Christ in our Eucharist.

This is where we disagree, that only

in apostolic succession is there validity.

So, in keeping with the thread, Lutherans regard the words of Christ, “This is my Body” as Him actually changing common bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity." There is no argument, like with some other Protestants, that Christ was using a metaphor or that the Jews misunderstood Him or ‘The flesh profits nothing…’ really means that Christ’s Flesh is worthless. The words of consecration are accepted as valid with the meaning as clearly expressed by Christ in John 6 and at the Last Supper.

Moving on… I did a bit a research (on Catholic Answers, of all places…) and it seems like this question has come up before. After reading a number of responses, I copied the one I thought fit best. Here it is:

"For Catholics, the Real Presence in the Eucharist in which the change is described by transubstantiation can only be had if the one who presides over the celebration is a priest ordained in Apostolic Succession. In Lutheran theology, the ministry of believers acting at the Eucharist does not see any authority or power given through the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

For words of the minister to be effective, the minister must have the authority of ordination that is only found in those Bishops and Priests ordained in direct Apostolic Succession, since the authority is that of Christ himself who directly gave this authority to the Apostles and who in turn only transmitted this authority by the laying of hands in Holy Orders.
During the Reformation, the Lutheran ministry was separated from the sacramental episcopate and lost the historical succession of bishops from the apostles. Without this historical succession by laying of hands that has its authority from Christ, the Lutheran minister lacks the priestly character and the authority to preside at the Eucharist.
Without ordination that has a line that can be traced to Christ’s authority given to the Apostles, the priestly character is not given, and the Eucharist cannot be consecrated into the Body and Blood."

My understanding is this actually has it roots in Luther’s idea of the “Priesthood of all believers”. And, he specifically rejected the Catholic Prieshood.

And, here is my own personal focused opinion: for 15 centuries, ordained priests have been validly consecrating common bread and wine into the RP. Luther leaves the Catholic Church and creates several novel doctrines, possibly Sola Scriptura being his most famous, but, this priesthodd of all believers probably comes in second (?). Keeping the words is important, the issue is in changing their meaning. Since Luther rejected the CC, he very well could not go back to have his followers ordained, or have any further use for the CC as simply a practical matter. So, things were either done locally (nothing from Rome) or they were dropped.

Is there anything here that we can agree on?

God bless

 

[benjohnson]

It seems not a fair critique when regards the Lord’s Supper. No Lutheran I know denies the real presence. Ben, do you know a Lutheran synod that denies the RP?
To be sure, some Lutherans may incorrectly describe it as consubstantiation, but that’s just poor catechesis.

Jon

I think I over dramatized the amount of poor theology in the metropolitian Lutheran church as far as the Lord’s Supper - If I could back down and say that 10% simple have no idea what the sacrament is about.

 

[benjohnson]

.

It is simply a matter of realizing that mere recitation of the words do not by themselves bring about the effect.

God bless

Of course, we think God brings about the effect. I think this is where we’ll probably have to agree to disagree, while you don’t think we have valid orders based on lack of Apostolic Succession, most Lutherans are indifferent or claim Apostolic Succession via inoculation from other Anglican or Catholic sources - but would still fail to meet Catholic standards.

 

[pablope]

Nicea, well put. I just want to point out that I appreciate your post and you make some good points. I feel the need to say that after calling you out for being rude before. I understand you’re not trying to be.

I see where your logic is going with this, but I don’t fully understand. The Trinity, ressurection, Heaven, Hell, etc are all biblically based doctrines. The Real Presence, while you believe it is biblical, is something I’m arguing is not. So I feel the real debate revolves around what the bible says (which we disagree on, I’m aware) and not what the church fathers said.

 

[benjohnson]

Hi, Benjohnson,

“…Papal Infallibility isn’t quite perfect…” now, you know I could not let that pass unchallenged…
God bless

I think I should have been more specific in saying that Catholic governance hasn’t been perfect

I’m im not mistaken, the Catholic Church has only announced Papal Infallibility recently in the 1800’s and only a few dogmas have been iterated after that announcement: the Assumption of Mary for example. So there’s not much for me to pick apart.

The Catholic Pope has made some amazing things like Humanae Vitae. While the evidence is in your favor, while Popes have made amazingly good decisions, I’m afraid for me the only infallible human was also fully Devine and lived before there were even a papal office.

 

[Stephen_C]

I think I should have been more specific in saying that Catholic governance hasn’t been perfect

I’m im not mistaken, the Catholic Church has only announced Papal Infallibility recently in the 1800’s and only a few dogmas have been iterated after that announcement: the Assumption of Mary for example. So there’s not much for me to pick apart.

The Catholic Pope has made some amazing things like Humanae Vitae. While the evidence is in your favor, while Popes have made amazingly good decisions, I’m afraid for me the only infallible human was also fully Devine and lived before there were even a papal office.

Just a small note: Popes are not infallible humans…only when speaking from the Chair on Faith and Morals, (or something like that) He is protected by the HS from error. You do know the Pope has a Confesser right?

 

[mangy_dog]

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.

Like I said,

Very gingerly…