No Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Protestant Churches

[Mommyof02green]

You’re welcome. But remember, I’m not Roman Catholic. I’m another sort of Catholic (Duck!).

Yeah incoming… uch:

(I saw some humor in that… so shoot me!)

 

[GKC]

Yeah incoming… uch:

(I saw some humor in that… so shoot me!)

Nah. Comes with the territory, Ma’am.

GKC

 

[Randy_Carson]

I never argued the truth of Real Presence. I argued that Luther was, by far, not the first to challenge it.

I know you are in a hurry to defend your faith…even against those who did not challenge it, but only an incorrect statement made about church history.

hope this helps

What you wrote is the following:

The concept of Real Presence has always been tricky one, one that the Catholic Church has had to defend, “prove” and go to great lengths to explain, and get into the heads of the people.

It is still so.

After I challenge you, you declare, “I never argued the truth of Real Presence.” and make sport of me for being “in a hurry to defend”.

Why, pray tell, did you put the word “prove” in quotation marks? Why did you suggest that the Church has to “go to great lengths to explain” implying that it is difficult or impossible to do so?

And now you claim to be a believer in the Real Presence? You’re in good company…so was Luther.

But your own words appear to be contradictory.

 

[holy_wood]

Hey I have a question to the Protestants here. If we could ask an Apostle who knew Jesus if Christ was really speaking literally or metaphorically would you listen?

But ah man, none of them ever explicitly spoke either way on the matter. I guess were back at square one.
Oh wait luckily were not if the Apostles did not speak explicitly on the matter then one of their deciples might have. Lets see.

Oh yes, here we go, St. Ignasius of Antioch. Good guy** he was the third Bishop of Antioch and a 40 year deciple of the Apostle John**l as well. He’s definetly someone who has the authority and knowledge about Christ teachings to trump any teachings of the 21st century Pastor today.

So let us see what this **40 year deciple of the Apostle John **has to say on the issue of the Eucharist…

Letter to the Smyrnaeans
"Let no one be deceived! Even the heavenly powers and the angels in their splendor and the principalities, both visible and invisible, must either believe in the Blood of Christ, or else face damnation. Let him grasp it who can. Let no rank puff up anyone; for faith and love are paramount–the greatest blessings in the world**…From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead.** And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness.

Letter to the Ephesians **
Make an effort, then, to meet more frequently to celebrate God’s Eucharist and to offer praise**. For, when you meet frequently in the same place, the forces of Satan are overthrown, and his baneful influence is neutralized by the unanimity of your faith. Peace is a precious thing: it puts an end to every war waged by heavenly or earthly enemies.

Letter to the Philadelphians
Take care, then, to partake of one Eucharist; for, one is the Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one the cup to unite us with His Blood, and one altar, just as there is one bishop assisted by the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants. Thus you will conform in all your actions to the will of God.](Apostolic Succession /Just thought I’d emphasize that a little)

Wow, thats deep, if this 40 year deciple of the Apostle John believed in the Eucharist, why don’t you???

God Bless. This was just my :twocents:

 

[Mannyfit75]

That contradicts your heading, which is “No Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Protestant Churches”​

You know you seem to miss one of the word which I have written in the OP.

Do you want me to restate it?

Let me quote it for you if you and others have missed it. It’s in post # 1.

There is some presence of Jesus Christ but only in** Spiritual form **in the communities founded in the Protestant Churches

I hope this bold context is enough to convince you that nothing is contradicted. I only say what is lacking is Real Presence as in the way you can eat the body and blood of the Lord in the substance of bread and wine.

 

[Contarini]

I never argued the truth of Real Presence. I argued that Luther was, by far, not the first to challenge it.

since Luther didn’t challenge the Real Presence, this is a problematic claim. . . .

You’re right that it was challenged before the Reformation, but only sporadically. Zwingli deserves a lot of blame for the raving anti-sacramentalism of much modern Protestantism!

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

I also stated the E. Orthodox maintain their sacraments, including the Holy Orders of the religious because of this their Blessed Eucharist is valid.

As for Anglicans other Protestant which somewhat maintain some “catholic” tradition, maintain similiar Real Presence but there sacraments according to the Holy See is Invalid because of their break with Rome.

 

[GKC]

I also stated the E. Orthodox maintain their sacraments, including the Holy Orders of the religious because of this their Blessed Eucharist is valid.

As for Anglicans other Protestant which somewhat maintain some “catholic” tradition, maintain similiar Real Presence but there sacraments according to the Holy See is Invalid because of their break with Rome.

Nope. The break with Rome is not what *Apostolicae Curae *says is the reason that Anglican orders are null and void.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[cheddarsox]

What you wrote is the following:

After I challenge you, you declare, “I never argued the truth of Real Presence.” and make sport of me for being “in a hurry to defend”.

Why, pray tell, did you put the word “prove” in quotation marks? Why did you suggest that the Church has to “go to great lengths to explain” implying that it is difficult or impossible to do so?

And now you claim to be a believer in the Real Presence? You’re in good company…so was Luther.

But your own words appear to be contradictory.

\

I put the word prove in quotes because they didn’t have to prove what is true, but others demanded it of them.

so they weren’t really proving it, but meeting the requests and demand made of them by those who did not believe.

I am not “now” claiming to believe in the Real Presence, it is something I have always held to.

I’m not sure why you are making this personal. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. Why don’t we just discuss the issues?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

It was a needless inference - it’s not Jesus leaves us, but that He wished His disciples to join in table-fellowship with one another: as we see them doing in Acts This table-fellowship is a participation, by the redeemed community which He founded, in the blessings of the eschatological banquet mentioned in several parables; for them to share in it at the Last Supper was the greatest gift He could give to His disciples; & by sharing in it then, they shared in the fruits of His coming victory on the Cross. We share in it too, in the same way - except that we live late than they did. The Lord is the same, & so is His gift. That’s why we renew it - He told us to, until His Coming.​

That is exactly what my church teaches. We just dont go as far as transubstantiation.

 

[rbarcia]

If it were symbolic why are we warned that we would be drinking a cup of judgement upon ourselves if we took unworthily?

It’s like wearing a wedding ring while committing adultery.

You cannot proclaim Christ died for your sin and live in sin.

Nothing to do with real presence. I hope this helps your confusion.

 

[rbarcia]

And has been from the beginning.

“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

However, Jesus did not pander to the crowd by saying, “Hey, c’mon back, folks. I was speaking metaphorically.” :nope:

Jesus told His disciples the meaning.
**

John 6

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
They left him because they could not accept his teaching. It is still so.

**

Jesus often did not tell the crowd the meaning, but revealed it to the disciples.

 

[rbarcia]

The assumption was that Jesus leaves us and that we have to receive him again.

If this foolishness were true, then you should ask yourselves why you receive communion four times a year )or whatever the frequency of your own ecclesial community happens to be).

IOW, have you attended a “communion service” more than once in your life?

If so, why? Did Jesus leave YOU and you had to receive him again?

MY rhetorical questions are a stupid as the one originally posted.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

We eat communion in rememberence of Christ’s Death. So how often we do it has nothing to do with the presence of Christ in us, because He is in the hearts of all believers.

You believe you are receiving Christ physically in you, so that is why I ask the question? If Christ is in you, why do you need to receive him more.

 

[estesbob]

We eat communion in rememberence of Christ’s Death. So how often we do it has nothing to do with the presence of Christ in us, because He is in the hearts of all believers.

You believe you are receiving Christ physically in you, so that is why I ask the question? If Christ is in you, why do you need to receive him more.

In about an hour I will Hold our Lord and Savior in my hands. I will consume his Body and drink his blood. The question is not why would I need more-the question is why would you pass up the opportunity to hold the Creator of the Universe in your hands and follow his explicit intructions to eat his Body and Drink his Blood???

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Jesus said, “…I am with you always even to the end of the world…” Can we assume He meant spiritually? Is a spiritual presence the same as REAL PRESENCE? Something to think about.

Over the centuries there have been countless Eucharistic miracles. One is the Miracle of San Damiano, Italy. You can Google and find many sites on this subject.

Eucharistic Adoration require a Consecrated Host to be in plain view…if it is a “spiritual” presence then WHY have the Eucharist displayed in the first place?

Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ makes us almost, in a sense, genetically related to God’s Son, Jesus. That, in turn, splices us all with an eternal “gene.”

Jesus said, “…I am the Living Bread…” That can only mean “living” as we all know it to mean. Transubstantiation.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Nope. The break with Rome is not what *Apostolicae Curae *says is the reason that Anglican orders are null and void.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Thanks for correcting. Just as I said they have invalid orders.

 

[Randy_Carson]

\

I put the word prove in quotes because they didn’t have to prove what is true, but others demanded it of them.

so they weren’t really proving it, but meeting the requests and demand made of them by those who did not believe.

I agree with you completely. The Church has always held that Jesus is present - body, blood, soul, and divinity - in the sacrament. The demand for proof came later from those who began to deny this reality. Of course, now some non-Catholic will ask me for proof from the writings of the Early Church Fathers which illustrates that they held the doctrine of transubstantiation or that the phrase 'really, truly and substantially present" was in common use in the early Church. This fails to grasp the concept of “development”, of course.

I am not “now” claiming to believe in the Real Presence, it is something I have always held to.

My use of the word “now” does not mean that you have embraced this belief in the last 24-48 hours…rather, I mean that “now” in your more recent post you state that you hold to the real presence whereas previously your posts gave the appearance that you did not. My sincerest apologies if I misinterpreted your posts. I do the best I can with the printed word before me. :tiphat:

I’m not sure why you are making this personal. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. Why don’t we just discuss the issues?

My desire exactly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus told His disciples the meaning.

John 6

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
They left him because they could not accept his teaching. It is still so.

Jesus often did not tell the crowd the meaning, but revealed it to the disciples.

Please provide the verse from scripture in which Jesus explains to his closest disciples that he was speaking metaphorically.

From the Bible Alone, show us why we should not accept His words in a literal fashion.

Then beginning with Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus show us how the Early Church Fathers taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and that the bread and wine are only symbols.

Finally, if you are feeling particularly ambitious, please provide quotations with references from anyone prior to the mid-16th century who held that the Eucharist was anything other than the body and blood of Christ. To be intellectually honest, you ought to balance these by including some quotations from the Church’s responses to their writings.

This excercise should be very enlightening.

Thanks in advance. :tiphat:

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus told His disciples the meaning.
**

John 6

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
They left him because they could not accept his teaching. It is still so.

**

Jesus often did not tell the crowd the meaning, but revealed it to the disciples.

I see no symbolism in that passage at all. As David Armstrong states in his book “Catholic Verses”

Martin Luther refute that passage which you have cited. Even though he is no longer Catholic his belief is Jesus is present along with the bread and wine. He doesn’t believe in merely symbolic meanings concerning the passage in John

He said and I quote:

“All right! There we have it. This is clear, plains, and unconcealed: “I am speaking of my flesh and blood.”…There we have a flat statement which cannot be interpreted in any other way than that is no life but death alone, apart from His Flesh and Blood if these are neglected or despised. How is it possible to distort this text? You must note these words and this with the utmost diligence… It can neither speciously be interpreted nor avoided and evaded.”

Luther believes in consubstantiation.

 

[GKC]

Thanks for correcting. Just as I said they have invalid orders.

So says Apostolicae Curae. We Anglicans have a different opinion on the matter. It’s a long, complicated and sad story, is the tale of Apostolicae Curae, but as a RC it’s what you should affirm.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus