No Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Protestant Churches

[Mickey]

While it is correct to state that the RCC allows the Orthodox church members to recieve of the Eucharist, the Orthodox memebers are strictly forbidden to partake of the eucahrist from a RC priest.

The Orthodox however, strictly forbid anyone from partaking of the eucharist, from an Orthodox priest, if they are not Orthodox.

This is what I said.

 

[twk001]

I am a catholic but seriously considering changing to a Lutheran church near my home. I am amused at all of the scripture slinging done here, simply because it really boils down to this: not where you go, but your relationship with Jesus. I think that this sort of arguing and bad-mouthing of other’s religions is ridiculous. Can we could just all be more respectful of each other’s beliefs? I would like to add the argument that I really feel Jesus is present within EACH of us, and not just within the four walls of a church on a sunday. I also feel much more “fed” spiritually from non-Catholic churches. They keep the spirit alive all week long through group studies, women’s groups, men’s accountability groups, missionary groups, etc. The Catholic churches that I have attended -5 in all- offer me just sunday service. I may sound quite “simply” in my beliefs, I certainly cannot rattle of scripture or dogma of the church, but I have had both youth ministry and lay ministry training and worked within a Catholic church for 6 years. Oh, and by the way, the Lutheran church DOES celebrate the sacrement of communion every 2 weeks and they believe that Jesus IS the bread and the wine. twk

 

[Contarini]

Faith is a gift to the individual, even the Catechism claims this.

Yes, but it comes through the Church. An individual can be appropriately assumed to believe what his church believes. That’s all I’m saying.

Edwin

 

[pprimeau1976]

I am a catholic but seriously considering changing to a Lutheran church near my home. I am amused at all of the scripture slinging done here, simply because it really boils down to this: not where you go, but your relationship with Jesus. I think that this sort of arguing and bad-mouthing of other’s religions is ridiculous. Can we could just all be more respectful of each other’s beliefs? I would like to add the argument that I really feel Jesus is present within EACH of us, and not just within the four walls of a church on a sunday. I also feel much more “fed” spiritually from non-Catholic churches. They keep the spirit alive all week long through group studies, women’s groups, men’s accountability groups, missionary groups, etc. The Catholic churches that I have attended -5 in all- offer me just sunday service. I may sound quite “simply” in my beliefs, I certainly cannot rattle of scripture or dogma of the church, but I have had both youth ministry and lay ministry training and worked within a Catholic church for 6 years. Oh, and by the way, the Lutheran church DOES celebrate the sacrement of communion every 2 weeks and they believe that Jesus IS the bread and the wine. twk

I understand your pain, trust me, I thought as you thought at one time in my life. I wanted to join the Methodists because they liked to sing and their youth programs were great! However, when I looked at the content of what the Church taught, the teachings floored me! I couldn’t believe what I was thinking back when I was 19! Don’t leave because you have had the wrong pastor or because you couldn’t feel the Spirit. The Spirit’s there…trust me. Maybe God is calling you to help improve the Church in this regard.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Yes, but it comes through the Church. An individual can be appropriately assumed to believe what his church believes. That’s all I’m saying.

Edwin

So are you saying that the sharing of Holy Communion amongst the members of the Churches should be discouraged then? Is that the Episcopal thought?

 

[Contarini]

So are you saying that the sharing of Holy Communion amongst the members of the Churches should be discouraged then? Is that the Episcopal thought?

I’m defending the coherence of the Catholic position. Anglicans have a broader understanding of the Church. Until the 1960s, though, it was common to allow only those confirmed by a bishop to receive communion (which in practice meant only Anglicans, since Catholics and Orthodox would not receive). Today the official position is that baptized Christians who receive communion in their own church can receive, and I support that policy. Note that this is a church-based policy–it just defines the Church as the community of all the baptized.

Many Episcopalians allow unbaptized people to receive communion, and I think that is wrong.

Edwin

 

[icxc_nika]

An Orthodox who believed that the Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was symbolic, would be a heretic. Just like a Catholic who believed that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was symbolic would be a heretic.

However, a Protestant who is coming to believe (or already does believe) that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is *real *should not be classified as such.

The only people that prohibit Orthodox Christians from receiving communion are the Orthodox bishops, not the Catholic bishops. And for what purpose? It’s like the Russians building the Berlin Wall to keep people from fleeing East Berlin.

I am not calling the Orthodox “Russians”, but what your leadership is doing is sending the wrong message, just like I think that my Church leadership is sending the wrong message to Protestants.

I strongly disagree with your notion that our leadership is sending the wrong message.

It is the fact that the reverence of the eucharist is held in such a high regard… the fact that you are holding the very body and blood of Christ, that is being defended.

The church will clearly tell you that there can be no assurance to anyone that there is validity in the sacraments in any church other than the Orthodox church. Thus, each priest, must be sure that the eucharist is being distributed only to those who are prepared. It is not an attempt to be mean, it is simply to protect the unprepared, and to ultimately protect the sacrament.

As far as the Catholics sending the wrong message to the Protestants, ultmiately I really don’t understand.
If you are not a member of the church, you are not in communion with the Chruch, thus why would they even wish to participate in the eucharistic service. If they desire to participate, then join the church.

 

[icxc_nika]

pprimeau1976;2227003:

Thank you
Are those the words said that turn it into the real flesh and real blood? Is there a place in scripture where the Lord says only the priest can change the elements? If so, where? Is there any scripture that says specifically that when the priests say this it will turn into the flesh and blood? If so where? If not, where does the CC get the idea that this is the way the sacrement is suppose to be carried out?

Thank you.

Since the eucharist was given by our Lord in the last days of his life on earth, there will not be a tremendous amount written on this topic in the scriptures.

There are plenty of writings from the people in the early church that reference the eucharistic prayers, and the service itself.

It is also made clear in scripture that even those who knew Christ best, his disciples, did not know him until they partook of the sacrement that he gave.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi,

Could you tell me what exactly the priests says to consecrate it and where he gets this from in scripture?

Sure.

The priest quotes the words of Jesus.

This is from Eucharistic Prayer 1:

The day before he suffered, he took bread in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.

When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for youo and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

The parts in italics are the actual words of consecration are from Luke 22:19-20:

19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

You might also want to consider 1 Corinthians 11:23-25:

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

pprimeau1976;2227003:

Thank you
Are those the words said that turn it into the real flesh and real blood? Is there a place in scripture where the Lord says only the priest can change the elements? If so, where? Is there any scripture that says specifically that when the priests say this it will turn into the flesh and blood? If so where? If not, where does the CC get the idea that this is the way the sacrement is suppose to be carried out?

Thank you.

Jesus only said these words, “Do this in memory of me”, etc. to eleven men. It was not one of those teaching given to thousands on a hillside.

Those apostles eventually appointed others to assist in the ministry and this evolved into the structure of bishop, priest and deacon.

By the way, the Didache was written in the first century and records the earliest account of how the mass was offered.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[pprimeau1976]

icxc nika:

The church will clearly tell you that there can be no assurance to anyone that there is validity in the sacraments in any church other than the Orthodox church. Thus, each priest, must be sure that the eucharist is being distributed only to those who are prepared. It is not an attempt to be mean, it is simply to protect the unprepared, and to ultimately protect the sacrament.

You had me and then you lost me. Why do you feel the need to protect the sacrament? Christ does not need protection from anyone. We may need protection from defiling ourselves, but in the end, the Church has no window to look at another man’s soul. Essentially, when a man take or recieves Christ in his hands, he must do so responsibly by doing so with a clean conscience.
icxc nika:

As far as the Catholics sending the wrong message to the Protestants, ultmiately I really don’t understand. If you are not a member of the church, you are not in communion with the Chruch, thus why would they even wish to participate in the eucharistic service. If they desire to participate, then join the church.

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?

 

[icxc_nika]

You had me and then you lost me. Why do you feel the need to protect the sacrament? Christ does not need protection from anyone. We may need protection from defiling ourselves, but in the end, the Church has no window to look at another man’s soul. Essentially, when a man take or recieves Christ in his hands, he must do so responsibly by doing so with a clean conscience.

As far as protecting the sacrements, you may very well see it differently han the Orthodox.
At the risk of offending, and I mean not to: the reverence that the Orthodox have for the Holy of Holies is certainly different than the RCC displays.

The priests don’t even touch the chalice that the communion is distributed in ( keep in mind the different forms that we disseminate the body and blood in ). The chalice is only handled with the holy napkin, and the body and blood never come in contact with anything other than a persons mouth.

Taking it to the next level: If you are invoking the eucharistic service, for the faithful, than you have a responsibility to them. In many of the parishes, the priest will announce prior to communion, that Holy communion is only for Orthodox Christians who have properly prepared with prayer, confession, and fasting.

The amount of harm that it does to a persons soul, to partake of communion, without being prepared, is unmeasruable. Thus the priest has a responsiblity to the unprepared, as well as to the prepared.

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?

All the more reason not to alter church tradition.
The Catholics use to have everyone “confirmed” within the first year of life. After this point, everyone was able to partake of communion. Western Catholic tradition changed and evolved, to what you have now. Only in the states do you have Catholics waiting until age 12-15 to be confirmed.

At any rate, we have tradtion so altered, that protestants don’t even understand why this is even necc. In fact, we have Catholics wondering why it’s a big deal that protestants can’t partake of communion.

This is utterly ridiculous that there is so little awareness of the process that it takes to be initiated into the church, following scripture and tradition, and wondering why Apostolic/Sacremental Christians should be upset that people have such little respect for these traditions.

 

[believers]

All this sparring has not settled a single point insofar as the Eucharist is concerned.

It’s time for a direct question:

This post is a setup isn’t it? You just have to read my posts to know all the questions you asked.

TO BELIEVERS. Now tell us point blank…what are Catholics receiving when they step up and receive the Eucharist?

You absolutely cannot receive Jesus unless you turn to Him in faith (eat your meat). You are receiving nothing more than a wafer. I mean no disrespect… but you asked.

You can tell us what YOU believe we are doing.

Is it an exercise of pure folly?

Well… if you actually broke the bread (not giving it out in nice round whole pieces) and didn’t say it was actually Jesus, then I’d believe you were doing it in REMEMBRANCE of Him.

Is it nothing more than a bread form?

Well it should be nothing more than bread which should be BROKEN and EATEN in REMEMBRANCE of Him.

Is it a meaningless ritual?

Not if done according to the scriptures.

Is it a superstition that being carried on for 2,000 years?

Not if done according to the scriptures.

Is it redundant?

Not if done according to the scriptures.

Tell us, maybe you can make us stop.

I’m just glad a vast amount of Catholics don’t believe in the Real presence either. They too believe it’s just a REMEMBRANCE of His sacrifice for us.

By the way, have you noticed that most people don’t drink the “blood” after they receive the Eucharist. You’ll be amazed how many people just pass it by. If it truly is the blood then I’m sure everyone in there would just walk by it like it doesn’t exist.

 

[believers]

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

We don’t have faith in crackers and grapejuice. We have faith in Jesus. We do this ritual in REMEMBRANCE of Him. We thank Him for His sacrifice on the cross. We know that His body was BROKEN and that’s why we BRAKE the bread. We believe on Him and by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, we have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The absurdity contained in your signature has already been addressed.

1. You mix two different teaching occasions. One is specifically metaphorical (John 4:34) and one is literal (John 6). Further, you force a literal meaning upon one metaphor in order to “prove” that a literal passage is a metaphor. You have not addressed this problem.
2. Jesus was a real man who ate real food. If he had attempted to survive on “doing the will of God” alone, he would have starved to death. You have not addressed this problem.
3. John uses very different words to convey very different meanings. Jesus said that his flesh, sarx, which refers specifically to the body of a man, is real food, and it is this same body which He gave for the life of the world upon the cross. In contrast, broma refers to ordinary food. You have not addressed this problem.
4. In the book of Corinthians, chapter 11, the Apostle Paul conveys the same message in almost identical words as found in Luke’s narrative of the last supper despite the fact that Paul was not present in Capernaum or in the Upper Room. Further, he definitively states that what he learned about the Eucharist was received directly from Jesus. Therefore, neither John nor Paul have made any effort whatsoever to correct any possible misinterpretation of the literal presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist despite the fact that the Church was teaching this doctrine at the time that each of them wrote. You have not addressed this problem.
5. The Didache, written in the first century (while the Apostle John was still alive) speaks of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ and not as mere symbols. You have not addressed this problem.
6. The Early Church Fathers incontrovertibly teach the Real Presence of the Eucharist. You have not addressed this problem.
7. The Eastern Orthodox Church, Martin Luther (and the denomination which bears his name) and other Protestant groups (including the Anglican communion) all hold to the Real Presence despite differences in understanding of what takes place at consecration. You have not addressed this problem.
8. Finally, a plain reading of the text says the following, “Unless you eat the flesh (sarx) of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” On a very real, very personal level, you have not addressed this problem.

No transubstantiation, no Jesus. Know transubstantiation, know Jesus.

 

[believers]

The absurdity contained in your signature has already been addressed.

1. You mix two different teaching occasions. One is specifically metaphorical (John 4:34) and one is literal (John 6). Further, you force a literal meaning upon one metaphor in order to “prove” that a literal passage is a metaphor. You have not addressed this problem.
2. Jesus was a real man who ate real food. If he had attempted to survive on “doing the will of God” alone, he would have starved to death. You have not addressed this problem.
3. John uses very different words to convey very different meanings. Jesus said that his flesh, sarx, which refers specifically to the body of a man, is real food, and it is this same body which He gave for the life of the world upon the cross. In contrast, broma refers to ordinary food. You have not addressed this problem.
4. In the book of Corinthians, chapter 11, the Apostle Paul conveys the same message in almost identical words as found in Luke’s narrative of the last supper despite the fact that Paul was not present in Capernaum or in the Upper Room. Further, he definitively states that what he learned about the Eucharist was received directly from Jesus. Therefore, neither John nor Paul have made any effort whatsoever to correct any possible misinterpretation of the literal presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist despite the fact that the Church was teaching this doctrine at the time that each of them wrote. You have not addressed this problem.
5. The Didache, written in the first century (while the Apostle John was still alive) speaks of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ and not as mere symbols. You have not addressed this problem.
6. The Early Church Fathers incontrovertibly teach the Real Presence of the Eucharist. You have not addressed this problem.
7. The Eastern Orthodox Church, Martin Luther (and the denomination which bears his name) and other Protestant groups (including the Anglican communion) all hold to the Real Presence despite differences in understanding of what takes place at consecration. You have not addressed this problem.
8. Finally, a plain reading of the text says the following, “Unless you eat the flesh (sarx) of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” On a very real, very personal level, you have not addressed this problem.

No transubstantiation, no Jesus. Know transubstantiation, know Jesus.

A plain reading of the rest of John explains this very SPIRITUAL process of eating the flesh and blood.

 

[Randy_Carson]

By the way, have you noticed that most people don’t drink the “blood” after they receive the Eucharist. You’ll be amazed how many people just pass it by. If it truly is the blood then I’m sure everyone in there would just walk by it like it doesn’t exist.

You might be amazed to learn why this is the case.

The host contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

The chalice contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

In receiving the host, you get it all. In receiving the cup, you get it all.

Many years ago, it was felt that people misunderstood the above, so the Church withheld the cup so that people would understand that the host contains Jesus entirely. In more recent times, it was discerned that the former misunderstanding had been sufficiently addressed, and the cup is now offered. However, the Church still prefers that if only one species is taken, that communicants receive the host alone and not the chalice alone.

Concerning those who do not receive the cup, it is true that germs can be passed from person to person who share a common cup even if that cup contains the blood of Christ. Consequently, some people refrain from taking the cup. Perhaps you might consider why many Protestant groups use tiny little “shot glasses” instead of a common communion cup when they distribute their grape juice. Boy, we kids sure had fun polishing off all the leftovers after communion when I was Protestant. So much for receiving the body and blood “worthily” as Paul exhorts the Corinthians. Still, it’s not possible to eat and dring condemnation on ourselves when Jesus isn’t really there, so no harm done, I suppose.

Finally, it is regrettable that more Catholics do not understand the reality of the Eucharist completely. It is also regrettable that they do not understand the evils of contraception, abortion and divorce as well.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Mannyfit75]

You might be amazed to learn why this is the case.

The host contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

The chalice contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

In receiving the host, you get it all. In receiving the cup, you get it all.

Many years ago, it was felt that people misunderstood the above, so the Church withheld the cup so that people would understand that the host contains Jesus entirely. In more recent times, it was discerned that the former misunderstanding had been sufficiently addressed, and the cup is now offered. However, the Church still prefers that if only one species is taken, that communicants receive the host alone and not the chalice alone.

Concerning those who do not receive the cup, it is true that germs can be passed from person to person who share a common cup even if that cup contains the blood of Christ. Consequently, some people refrain from taking the cup. Perhaps you might consider why many Protestant groups use tiny little “shot glasses” instead of a common communion cup when they distribute their grape juice. Boy, we kids sure had fun polishing off all the leftovers after communion when I was Protestant. So much for receiving the body and blood “worthily” as Paul exhorts the Corinthians. Still, it’s not possible to eat and dring condemnation on ourselves when Jesus isn’t really there, so no harm done, I suppose.

Finally, it is regrettable that more Catholics do not understand the reality of the Eucharist completely. It is also regrettable that they do not understand the evils of contraception, abortion and divorce as well.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Amen!

 

[LutheranDK]

I’m sorry, but it’s simply not true that our Lord is not present in Protestant churches!
First of all, because of the fact that where two or three are gathered in His name, there He himself is there among them (as He has promised), and secondly:

At least in Lutheran doctrine, the Holy Communion IS a sacrament, alongside Baptism.
I myself consider the Holy Communion as the highlight of the service, not counting the sermon, because it is where we recieve the body and blood of our Savior.

One of the founding written confessions of the Lutheran Church, Confessio Augustana, has this to say about the Holy Communion:
(my own translation from Danish)

“Of the Holy Communion, they [the Lutheran congregations] teach that the body and blood of Christ is indeed present and is given the particioners during the meal. And they frown upon them that teach otherwise”

So Christ is indeed present in at least ONE of the protestant churches

Peace of God with you all

Mark

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m sorry, but it’s simply not true that our Lord is not present in Protestant churches!

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: