No Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Protestant Churches

[Kristopher]

Due to lack of Holy Orders, or Sacraments. Most Protestant Churches lack the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. …

Only the two large main Christian body which is both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church maintain Holy Orders and valid Sacraments. … there are Protestant Tradition that have bishops in the Anglican Churches and Episcopalian, they do not have valid sacrament since the Church of England broke their union with Rome during the Reformations.

There is some presence of Jesus Christ but only in Spiritual form in the communities founded in the Protestant Churches but they lack Real Presence of Jesus Christ. … The Jesus’ Presence in the Blessed Sacrament is the only that has kept me Catholic. … I tell you there is no Real Presence of Jesus in your Church. Not One.

I’m not entirely certain, that you have completely established, let alone sufficiently supported your claim, that both the Roman Rite and the Eastern Orthodox churches, alone, have the Real Presence, but maybe you have gone as far with it, as you can go. Since it seems to be your claim to support: I wonder why it is I should convince you to leave your rite.

Personally, being a Lutheran, there is the Real Presence at the service, that I attend–always has been, always will be.

I’m unclear about the reason(s) you hold, that the Eastern Orthodox Church is any more together Catholic and valid in their sacraments, than the Anglican Church, or churches.

John
Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’"
32
So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34
So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

35
17 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.

Matthew
26
14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
29
17 I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

Did Jesus ever become bread in the verses from John? Was Jesus at two places, at the time he spoke, and where he spoke in Matthew? Was the wine his blood as he said, if it was the blood of whom, or of what was it? Jesus said, it was his “blood of the covenant”. Then he was the covenant, and this is the importance of his body, and of his blood, hence the importance of preaching, as Paul stated: Christ crucified. The Sacrament of Holy Communion can be no more above this covenant, than Jesus, or any further below it, than Jesus. Perhaps you should leave your Roman Rite, upon excommunication, as Martin Luther not having left the church, but being separated from it by excommunication—“left the church” in a very loose manner of speaking.

In the meantime: you are the one to demonstrate that there is no Real Presence in the sacrament(s) of the Protestant Church(s); since, it is your claim.

It would seem: Jesus’ opinion was two-fold–he held it to be his blood; though, in verse twenty-nine it remained fruit of the vine.

 

[Mannyfit75]

]
I’m not entirely certain, that you have completely established, let alone sufficiently supported your claim, that both the Roman Rite and the Eastern Orthodox churches, alone, have the Real Presence, but maybe you have gone as far with it, as you can go. Since it seems to be your claim to support: I wonder why it is I should convince you to leave your rite.

Personally, being a Lutheran, there is the Real Presence at the service, that I attend–always has been, always will be.

I’m unclear about the reason(s) you hold, that the Eastern Orthodox Church is any more together Catholic and valid in their sacraments, than the Anglican Church, or churches.

John
Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’"
32
So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34
So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

35
17 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.

Matthew
26
14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
29
17 I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

Did Jesus ever become bread in the verses from John? Was Jesus at two places, at the time he spoke, and where he spoke in Matthew? Was the wine his blood as he said, if it was the blood of whom, or of what was it? Jesus said, it was his “blood of the covenant”. Then he was the covenant, and this is the importance of his body, and of his blood, hence the importance of preaching, as Paul stated: Christ crucified. The Sacrament of Holy Communion can be no more above this covenant, than Jesus, or any further below it, than Jesus. Perhaps you should leave your Roman Rite, upon excommunication, as Martin Luther not having left the church, but being separated from it by excommunication—“left the church” in a very loose manner of speaking.

You probably did not catch this post that I wrote down.

Mannyfit75:

Lutherans believe in Constantiation similiar to the Orthodox Christian belief regarding the Eucharist. These faiths don’t deny Real Presence. It is the mainstream Evangelical Protestants who have issues with the belief

.

Kristopher:

In the meantime: you are the one to demonstrate that there is no Real Presence in the sacrament(s) of the Protestant Church(s); since, it is your claim.

I have no desire at all to leave the Latin Rite Catholic Church. You apparently I have wrote precessing yours.

Jimmy Akin explains why Protestants sacraments particularly in the Eucharist are invalid while the Orthodox Christian have valid ones.

Concerning Anglicans:

Geoff: Leo XII declared Anglican Orders null in Apostolicae Curae because the Edwardine rite of ordination was defective in form. It had later been changed to a more Catholic-like form, but all the bishops living then had been ordained with the Edwardine rite, so there was no power or ordination left. Apostolicae Curae didn’t pronounce whether the improved rite could confer the sacrament. This was the situation when the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in the 1910s.

As for Lutheran, they believe in Constantiation (which states that the bread is present in the bread and wine as oppose to transubstantiation, which states the bread is no longer bread and the wine is no longer wine.

Orthodox maintain their sacraments to the sucession of bishops or patriarchs. They can trace their succession to St. James, St. Andrew. Lutherans can only trace they history during the Reformation. No valid Holy Orders, no valid Sacraments, no Eucharist.

Yes, you may believe it is Real Presence but because the lack of succession, the sacrament itself is invalid.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perhaps our Protestant friends can help me out…I’m having a hard time understanding John’s use of completely different words for bread, meat and flesh…here, let me show you:

John 4:34
34Jesus saith unto them, My meat (broma) is to do the will (thelema) of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

broma – Strong’s 1033

• that which is eaten, food
  John 6:51, 53-56
  51I am the living bread (artos) that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread (artos), he will live forever. This bread (artos) is my flesh (sarx), which I will give for the life of the world."
  53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh (sarx) of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh (sarx) and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh (sarx) is real food (brosis) and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh (sarx) and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

sarx – Strong’s 4561

• flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
• the body
• the body of a man
• used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship
• born of natural generation
• the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”
• without any suggestion of depravity
• the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
• the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
• a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
• the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
  brosis – Strong’s 1035
• act of eating
• in a wider sense, corrosion
• that which is eaten, food, ailment
• of the soul’s food, either which refreshes the soul, or nourishes and supports it
  artos – Strong’s 740
• loaf of bread, food – bread, loaves, shewbread
  Using the Greek, your syllogism:
  Bread=Flesh (Jn 6:51)
  Flesh=Meat (Jn 6:55)
  Meat=work of God (Jn 6:27, 4:34)
  Work of God=believe on Jesus (Jn 6:28-29)
  Believe on Jesus=have everlasting life (Jn 6:40)

Becomes:

Artos=sarx (Jn 6:51)
Sarx=brosis (Jn 6:55)
Broma=thelema (Jn 4:34)

And then I just sort of get lost because Believers says “work of God” in John 4:34 whereas the KJV and NIV actually say “will of God” which is based on the Greek thelema. Has he written “work of God” to support his own theory? I’m not seeing a connection at all between John 4:35 and John 6:51-58.

Also, perhaps you can explain clearly why John uses very different words in all these verses.

Specifically, why did Jesus say that “My *bromos *is to the the will of God…” which seems to suggest ordinary food, but he also said, “Unless you eat the sarx of the Son of Man” which clearly speaks of the body of a man?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can everyone just imagine what would happen if a Catholic tried to pull off an argument like this?

Whew!

 

[estesbob]

After all this debate, things come down to a few simple points. Protestants are blown to and fro by the winds of doctrine and above all, personal interpretation and personal opinion. They will never agree because they are led astray by the Evil One to their destruction. They are called protestants because they have always rebelled(protested) against the authority of the Church that Christ Himself instituted. One can only commend them to the mercy of God and hope that their eyes will be opened. Until then, they wander aimlessly, hoping that the interpretation that they have arrived at will be correct. Pray for their ignorance.

well doint beat around the bush-tell us what you really think

 

[icxc_nika]

I’m not entirely certain, that you have completely established, let alone sufficiently supported your claim, that both the Roman Rite and the Eastern Orthodox churches, alone, have the Real Presence, but maybe you have gone as far with it, as you can go. Since it seems to be your claim to support: I wonder why it is I should convince you to leave your rite.

Personally, being a Lutheran, there is the Real Presence at the service, that I attend–always has been, always will be.

I’m unclear about the reason(s) you hold, that the Eastern Orthodox Church is any more together Catholic and valid in their sacraments, than the Anglican Church, or churches.

Since the Orthodox and the RCC are the only ones that state explicitly that Holy Communion is REALLY the body and blood of Christ, and since these are the only two church’s that have always taught this and performed this as the central act of Worship, than there is little wonder why the RCC considers the Orthodox as holding valid sacraments.

All the silly talk of the priests performing the Liturgy and Mass as some magic acts is all to sorryful.
This is the mentality of people who have little capacity to behold the mysteries of the church.
We will hold out hope and prayer constatantly for those who blaspheme the Holy Church.
They mean no harm to Christ, but all to often, dismiss the traditions and the lessons that were taught to us via the Apostles, directly from Christ himself.

They dismiss the sacraments as magic acts, or as unneccesary salvific vehicles, while completey remaining ignorant of the Jewish customs and traditions that were performed in the temples from the Apostles and Christ himself.

If we don’t understand where we came from, then some Christians, will continue to degenerate into another 100,000 denominations of watered down believers.

I know that this may seem a bit harsh, but you must understand that we have thousands of years of Holy Martyrs, that just as soon be burnt, have their eyes poked out, be grilled alive, or suffer uncontionable deaths, simply to hold fast to the Truth of the Church as it was handed down, unaltered from the Apostles.

Alterations to our faith and worship is not acceptable, and I certainly consider any change to this as watering down our beliefs, and ultimately Christ himself.

 

[GKC]

Manny,

If that’s an accurate quote from Jimmy Akin, he’s left out a vital part of the logic in Apostolicae Curae

“Leo XII declared Anglican Orders null in Apostolicae Curae because the Edwardine rite of ordination was defective in form. It had later been changed to a more Catholic-like form, but all the bishops living then had been ordained with the Edwardine rite, so there was no power or ordination left. Apostolicae Curae didn’t pronounce whether the improved rite could confer the sacrament. This was the situation when the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in the 1910s.”

The fault that AC found was a combination of defect of form, in the Edwardine Ordinal, and defect of intent, (probably in the consecration of Archbishop Parker); proper form, intent, matter, minister all being necessary to the validity of a sacrament, in this case, Orders). Form cannot be considered alone in that decision, since the precise same form that is judged as defective in the Ordinal can be found in a dozen rites that the RCC does recognise as conveying valid orders. Intent and form have to be considered together to understand what AC was saying.

As I said before, *Apostolicae Curae *is a complicated and sad story. The personal, historical and political factors behind it are as interesting as the theological ones But nowhere nearly as well known.

And again, that is certainly the judgement that a RC should affirm. Anglicans have a different view of it, and of the validity of our orders and sacraments.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[holy_wood]

**It takes no faith to believe in crackers and grapejuice. **

 

[ALLFORHIM]

You Know I am truly amazed that this thread is 21 pages long and yet there is nothing new to say

You do realize neither side is going to change their belief. I believe we are going in circles.:yup: And honestly this will only create agitation ,sarcsm and uncharitable response.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

**It takes no faith to believe in crackers and grapejuice. **

AH but it takes total faith to believe in what they represent:thumbsup:

 

[Mickey]

Specifically, why did Jesus say that “My *bromos *is to the the will of God…” which seems to suggest ordinary food, but he also said, “Unless you eat the sarx of the Son of Man” which clearly speaks of the body of a man?

Wonderful post Randy!

 

[Mickey]

Personally, being a Lutheran, there is the Real Presence at the service, that I attend–always has been, always will be.

It may be beneficial for you to begin a post on Holy Orders.

 

[Mickey]

After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood."
St Jerome

 

[GKC]

You Know I am truly amazed that this thread is 21 pages long and yet there is nothing new to say

You do realize neither side is going to change their belief. I believe we are going in circles.:yup: And honestly this will only create agitation ,sarcsm and uncharitable response.

Oh sure there is. My post above is the first time details on *Apostolicae Curae *have been presented. Presenting relevant facts is always useful; *Apostolicae Curae *is relevant to the issue of the Real Presence in the Anglican Mass…

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[HoneyBee79]

What if I am a Protestant Christian who ardently believes in the Real Presence of Christ because of what Jesus said in John 6? I have no reason to doubt His words and do not want to turn away from Him. I agree with the position of the Catholic Church. But is that not enough? Am I still then not receiving Him in fullness in the communion at my Protestant church because it hasn’t been consecrated by a Catholic Priest? If not, please help me understand why.
Sincere Thanks

 

[Mickey]

What if I am a Protestant Christian who ardently believes in the Real Presence of Christ because of what Jesus said in John 6? I have no reason to doubt His words and do not want to turn away from Him. I agree with the position of the Catholic Church. But is that not enough? Am I still then not receiving Him in fullness in the communion at my Protestant church because it hasn’t been consecrated by a Catholic Priest? If not, please help me understand why.
Sincere Thanks

**The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith. **
First Epistle Of Clement To The Corinthians, Chap. XLII

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Oh sure there is. My post above is the first time details on *Apostolicae Curae *have been presented. Presenting relevant facts is always useful; *Apostolicae Curae *is relevant to the issue of the Real Presence in the Anglican Mass…

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[GKC]

Thanks:thumbsup:

You are very welcome. *Apostolicae Curae *and Henry VIII/the Tudor era are among my book hobbies.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[jblair]

Did each person who replied to this topic make the time to pray and listen to God before replying?

 

[Writer]

The entire rosary is a meditation on Sacred Scripture. If you would like to start a thread on this, please feel free.

The Jewish prayer beads or tassels also have an interesting similarity to the rosary…