No Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Protestant Churches

[Contarini]

My bad.

I should have looked at your profile.

Please forgive my rudeness.

No problem. I do put my affiliation in my signature precisely to avoid this sort of misunderstanding, but it still happens!

If you thought I was an RC attacking Orthodoxy by comparing it to Lutheranism, no wonder you were brusque.

Edwin

 

[LutheranDK]

I understand you believe this, but it is not objectively true.

When your denomination lost its valid consecration of bishops and priests, it lost its ability to consecrate the Eucharist validly.

I am thrilled that you believe that he is there (in the elements) and that you desire to receive him sacramentally, but he is not there in your “sacrament of the altar”. If you truly desire to receive the Lord in the sacrament, you must be either Catholic or a member of one of the orthodox Churches.

I know this is probably a shock to you if you have not heard this before, but I want to stress that this was not something punitively imposed upon the Lutherans by the Catholic Church; after all, the Eastern Orthodox separated from Rome AND maintained valid orders and sacraments. This loss came as a result of actions taken by the original founders of your denomination.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

I’m sorry if this question has already been dealt with, but I have a tendency to not read all the answers in a thread (especially one as extensive as this), but only those adressed to me.

Why do you believe that the Lutheran Church has lost “its valid consecration of bishops and priests”, especially since you do not claim this of the Orthodox Churches?
And furthermore: Why would THIS be a hinderance to recieving the body and blood of our Lord?

 

[Mickey]

That is easy for the Orthodox to say, since all three sacraments of initiation are normally given at infancy. The Latin Catholics space out the sacraments. I made my communion at 7, but never was confirmed until I was 13. How is an adult Protestant who believes in the Real Presence any different than a 7 year old Catholic, as far as their exposure to Church teaching goes?

As a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic, we also receive all three sacraments of initiation in infancy. It is an Eastern Tradition. It is my understanding that it used to be a Western Tradition also.

 

[Mickey]

We have slightly different takes on the matter of “mortal sin”.
Our point continues to be that no one is “worthy” to receive, but that really isn’t my point with some of these issues.

This is why the Latin Catholics proclaim, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the Word and I shall be healed”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m sorry if this question has already been dealt with, but I have a tendency to not read all the answers in a thread (especially one as extensive as this), but only those adressed to me.

Why do you believe that the Lutheran Church has lost “its valid consecration of bishops and priests”, especially since you do not claim this of the Orthodox Churches?
And furthermore: Why would THIS be a hinderance to recieving the body and blood of our Lord?

The Eastern Orthodox Church maintained its line of Apostolic Succession by carefully preserving the proper rites of consecration of its bishops and priests. Only validly ordained clergy can validly consecrate the Eucharist.

Anglicans and Lutherans did not.

THIS is a hindrance because despite your belief or that of your pastor who says the words, nothing happens to the bread or wine.

No consubstantiation. No transubstantiation. Nothing.

It is mere bread and mere wine. He is not there.

 

[icxc_nika]

The Eastern Orthodox Church maintained its line of Apostolic Succession by carefully preserving the proper rites of consecration of its bishops and priests. Only validly ordained clergy can validly consecrate the Eucharist.

Anglicans and Lutherans did not.

THIS is a hindrance because despite your belief or that of your pastor who says the words, nothing happens to the bread or wine.

No consubstantiation. No transubstantiation. Nothing.

It is mere bread and mere wine. He is not there.

Even more important is the notion of heresy.
No heresies in the EO. We can’t say the same thing in reverse, but nonetheless, for the purposes of this conversation, RCC have never called the EO heretics.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Even more important is the notion of heresy.
No heresies in the EO. We can’t say the same thing in reverse, but nonetheless, for the purposes of this conversation, RCC have never called the EO heretics.

Nope, we never. There have been theological differences but we Catholics never call EO heretics… I have deep respect for EO liturgical worship.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Orthodox tend not to seperate the sins into the categories of venial or mortal.

Although for simplicity sake, I have heard orthodox priests reference it as a means to explain some matters, regarding confession, to the laity here in the Western cultures.

Many people here state side, are aware enough of the Catholic notions of venial / mortal, that it can be used as a reference point.

This however is a post schism development in definition, and really has no significant bearing in our relations.

There are several occasions where Our savior had defined certain sins by their punishments. ’

"...it would be better had he never been born..."  

"..it would be better had he be thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck.."

These define certain offenses by degree of punishment. Notice that the above quotes are NOT merely “chastisements” which are not permanent separations from God. To chastise means to still have an avenue open to God by way of repentance.

But “…never been born…” or “…millstone…thrown into the Sea…” These are so egregious that they are measured by a different scale.

Yes, there are “venial” sins and there are “Mortal” sins.

We described above what constitutes a sin as "mortal.: Three conditions must be met.

Venial sins are not egregious but rather are “petty” which, when committed, robs the venial sinner of some of his brightness.

There is rationale in knowing the difference and that, in no way, encourages one to be a constant " venial sinner."

It’s a lot like “…take care of your pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves,” kind of perception. (watch out for venial sins lest we fall into GREAT sin).

 

[Contarini]

Nope, we never. There have been theological differences but we Catholics never call EO heretics.

You don’t any more. You (i.e., Catholics, not you personally) did at one time.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Even more important is the notion of heresy.
No heresies in the EO. We can’t say the same thing in reverse, but nonetheless, for the purposes of this conversation, RCC have never called the EO heretics.

I’m not looking to open up a can of worms or hijack this thread, but would you mind sharing with me a list (bullets only if possible) of the heresies of the Catholic Church?

I’ve never paid any interest in it, and except for the filioque, I’m not aware of problems y’all have with us.

 

[kaysette]

Maybe you should read a little more closely. I was a Catholic, that was my vantage point. I left because of the unholy pride on the INSIDE.

No one seduced me away, or told me ugly things about Catholicism. I experienced the things as an insider, and fled them.

I don’t go around attacking or bashing Catholicism, or trying to lure people away.

But, when asked, I do give my opionion, based on my experience.

cheddar

I am always curious as to why one raised Catholic leaves. An un-holy pride is one reason I have not heard before. I have never attended any church that there were not examples of most every type person there. There were those with pride, judgemental, unloving, those who sinned repeatedly and everyone knew it, those who were FORCED to attend, those who LOVED others and loved the Lord, those who knew the sciptures, prayed, read their bibles, those who never picked up a bible and only prayed in church. There were those who were generous and those who were miserly, those who were rich and those who were poor, sometimes there were even a few who stunk (literally!) I fail to see how this would be a good reason to leave your church. I never could leave any church for that reason, because that would make me have unholy pride more than those I judged, I felt.

I can’t help but wonder how many of Jesus disciples left Christianity after they found out they were baptised by Judas, or that they were healed by Judas. I bet there were quite a few because that seems to be the most common reason for people leaving their churches today – being offended by others’ sins or hypocrisy.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I am always curious as to why one raised Catholic leaves. An un-holy pride is one reason I have not heard before. I have never attended any church that there were not examples of most every type person there. There were those with pride, judgemental, unloving, those who sinned repeatedly and everyone knew it, those who were FORCED to attend, those who LOVED others and loved the Lord, those who knew the sciptures, prayed, read their bibles, those who never picked up a bible and only prayed in church. There were those who were generous and those who were miserly, those who were rich and those who were poor, sometimes there were even a few who stunk (literally!) I fail to see how this would be a good reason to leave your church. I never could leave any church for that reason, because that would make me have unholy pride more than those I judged, I felt.

Wow ! That is a very good post, thank you.

If one leaves the True Church because he/she notices an "inner pride’ of its members then: isn’t it the PRIDE of the one who notices this in others and shuns himself/herself from the True Church? That is to say, “I am BETTER than these prideful souls so I will go elsewhere to another church where the people are as humble as I.”

PRIDE is a very subtle sin and is not always readily recognizable. That is why PRIDE heads the list of the Seven Capital Sins.

This is a new twist as I read that post.

It says, to me, that “I am proud of my humility.”

Jesus does NOT require us to be perfect but only that we never cease striving for perfection.

Thye Church is under attack from the depths of Hell in these last days so much so that it (Hell) will lead many to fall away by accepting doctrines of demons. The Church is the only institution where Jesus dwells IN PERSON, IN THE EUCHARIST.

I can’t help but wonder how many of Jesus disciples left Christianity after they found out they were baptised by Judas, or that they were healed by Judas. I bet there were quite a few because that seems to be the most common reason for people leaving their churches today – being offended by others’ sins or hypocrisy.

 

[cheddarsox]

I am always curious as to why one raised Catholic leaves. An un-holy pride is one reason I have not heard before. I have never attended any church that there were not examples of most every type person there. There were those with pride, judgemental, unloving, those who sinned repeatedly and everyone knew it, those who were FORCED to attend, those who LOVED others and loved the Lord, those who knew the sciptures, prayed, read their bibles, those who never picked up a bible and only prayed in church. There were those who were generous and those who were miserly, those who were rich and those who were poor, sometimes there were even a few who stunk (literally!) I fail to see how this would be a good reason to leave your church. I never could leave any church for that reason, because that would make me have unholy pride more than those I judged, I felt.

I can’t help but wonder how many of Jesus disciples left Christianity after they found out they were baptised by Judas, or that they were healed by Judas. I bet there were quite a few because that seems to be the most common reason for people leaving their churches today – being offended by others’ sins or hypocrisy.

I am not referring to the sin of pride among the people, but the pride of the Church as an institution.

This does trickle down into how people present their faith and feel about their faith. I think there is a certain healthy pride the Church should have, and the people should have in their faith. When it extends to making statements about how God interacts with the rest of creation…I think it has crossed boundaries.

I have enough of my own sin issues to deal with. I really don’t much bother with watching what the other guy is doing. But I choose not to be a part of an institution that has “I AM” wrapped up that neatly. I am not prepared to make those claims about the Divine.

I am often told what are not good reasons for leaving a church. What do you feel would be a good reason? If a person does not believe, and is convicted that some teachings of the church misrepresent the Divine…should they not leave, rather than stay and cause scandal, lead others astray, misrepresent the faith, etc?

cheddar

 

[rr1213]

I’m not looking to open up a can of worms or hijack this thread, but would you mind sharing with me a list (bullets only if possible) of the heresies of the Catholic Church?

I’ve never paid any interest in it, and except for the filioque, I’m not aware of problems y’all have with us.

You’re in schism.

 

[Mickey]

I’m not looking to open up a can of worms or hijack this thread, but would you mind sharing with me a list (bullets only if possible) of the heresies of the Catholic Church?

I’ve never paid any interest in it, and except for the filioque, I’m not aware of problems y’all have with us.

I am not in the Orthodox Church but I am familiar with the issues they have with Roman Catholicsm. For starters, the issues would be:

1. Purgatory
2. Immaculate Conception/original sin
3. Filioque
4. Papal Infallibility/supremacy

4 seems to be the greatest concern to the Orthodox.​

 

[Mickey]

You’re in schism.

Nope. Catholics say they are schismatics. They call us heretics.

 

[LutheranDK]

The Eastern Orthodox Church maintained its line of Apostolic Succession by carefully preserving the proper rites of consecration of its bishops and priests. Only validly ordained clergy can validly consecrate the Eucharist.

Anglicans and Lutherans did not.

THIS is a hindrance because despite your belief or that of your pastor who says the words, nothing happens to the bread or wine.

No consubstantiation. No transubstantiation. Nothing.

It is mere bread and mere wine. He is not there.

I must admit that I am confused…
It seems to me that your reasoning is circular:
Holy Communion at a Lutheran service is mere bread and wine because the pastor isn’t “properly consecrated”, and the pastor isn’t properly consecrated because…he isn’t…

What exactly is the reason why you believe that Lutheran and Anglican bishops are not properly consecrated, and I’m afraid you didn’t really answered my question, as to why this is important for the precense of Christ, but only repeated yourself.

Even if we ASSUME for the moment that you’re correct (which I’m not prepared to agree to) in claiming that Lutheran pastors are not “properly” ordained; why would this be a hindrance?

The WORD is the focus of the consecration of the bread and the wine.
Until our Lord uttered the following words: “This is my body … this is my blood”, the elements were only bread and wine. They became something else by the word of God.
Likewise in the service: It is not the pastor himself that causes the bread and wine to become the body and blood of our Lord; it is the words - the very same words that Christ used at the Last Supper.
Furthermore: What is the basis on which to reject the ordination of Lutheran bishops and pastors?
And please don’t say “The Catholic church says so” - because that would again be circular reasoning :
“Lutheran pastors are not properly consecrated because the Church says so, and the Church says so, because they’re not properly consecrated”

In addition: Imagine the following scenario:

A group of believers strand on a desert island without hope of rescue. And there is no priest/pastor among them. As they die of starvation and thirst, they utter the wish of recieving Holy Communion. The make-shift leader of the stranded victims does the following:
By some amazing “luck” someone managed to bring a bottle of wine and a loaf of bread.
The leader then takes the bread and wine, consecrates it using the same words Christ did, distributes it to all of the others, and finishes off by drinking the rest of the wine and eating the rest of the bread, after which they all die more or less slowly

(NB: This was not meant to be a realistic scenario, but for the purpose of illustrating a point )

Did the leader of the group act correctly?
My answer to this question (but I don’t know about the official position of the Lutheran church on this) is yes.
All Christians are called to be priests and kings to God, and the pastor is merely the “primus inter pares”, first among equals.

I have propably a lot more to say on this, but I’m too tired to focus…properly

Mark

 

[rr1213]

What exactly is the reason why you believe that Lutheran and Anglican bishops are not properly consecrated, and I’m afraid you didn’t really answered my question, as to why this is important for the precense of Christ, but only repeated yourself.

With respect to Anglicans see below:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

 

[kaysette]

I am not referring to the sin of pride among the people, but the pride of the Church as an institution.

This does trickle down into how people present their faith and feel about their faith. I think there is a certain healthy pride the Church should have, and the people should have in their faith. When it extends to making statements about how God interacts with the rest of creation…I think it has crossed boundaries.

I have enough of my own sin issues to deal with. I really don’t much bother with watching what the other guy is doing. But I choose not to be a part of an institution that has “I AM” wrapped up that neatly. I am not prepared to make those claims about the Divine.

I am often told what are not good reasons for leaving a church. What do you feel would be a good reason? If a person does not believe, and is convicted that some teachings of the church misrepresent the Divine…should they not leave, rather than stay and cause scandal, lead others astray, misrepresent the faith, etc?

cheddar

I have looked and looked for any scriptures which command believers to leave their church if it is not perfect. I have always wondered what would have happened if Martin Luther had just hung in there, kept communicating and fellowshipping with the church and had the patience to wait for the Holy Spirit to deal with the Judas’s and abuses. If the scriptural mandates are true, and if those who recognized the sins and were righteous, and continued to be faithful and good examples, prayed for their leaders and prayed for revival – is there any reason to think that the Holy Spirit would not have answered their prayers?

 

[Contarini]

I have looked and looked for any scriptures which command believers to leave their church if it is not perfect. I have always wondered what would have happened if Martin Luther had just hung in there, kept communicating and fellowshipping with the church and had the patience to wait for the Holy Spirit to deal with the Judas’s and abuses. If the scriptural mandates are true, and if those who recognized the sins and were righteous, and continued to be faithful and good examples, prayed for their leaders and prayed for revival – is there any reason to think that the Holy Spirit would not have answered their prayers?

Yes, that’s exactly how I feel. That’s why I take Cardinal Contarini, who did adopt this approach, as my alias.

It looked as if Luther’s way worked and Contarini’s didn’t. But looking back after 500 years, I know which one I would rather be at the judgment! I would far rather fail like Contarini than succeed like Luther.

Edwin