No Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Protestant Churches

[estesbob]

estesbob;2239723:

If your statement suggest that he is physical present in Church than yes he is physical present any time people gather to praise him. Since I can not see him as to the physical present or not I do not know, but he there. I would phase it that there is no difference than going to church or gathering at the local Y in the road on any day of the week with a group of Christians to have a service. Jesus is present at both of these. The early church had no church, they gathered where they could, whether it was a church building or not and worshiped God. Jesus was present in the triune God.

If you can not see him or touch him or follow his instrutions to consume him he is not physcially present.

 

[cslink]

cslink;2239871:

If you can not see him or touch him or follow his instrutions to consume him he is not physcially present.

Maybe we are talking about two different things. If your are talking about the Sacraments you can get the true body and blood of Jesus Christ during communion outside of Church, if you definition of Church is the building. If your definition of Church is Christ is the Church no then Christ would not be present. I do not define the Catholic Church as the only Church of Christ.

 

[Mannyfit75]

cslink;2239618:

I agree. I go to Church and supposedly he is physically present on the altar, but it doesn’t seem to affect anyone. People leave church and hop in their cars to the Mall. It looks like a cracker to me. I guess I’m tired of clinging to this belief that the Catholic Church has the only true Eucharist. How can we limit Jesus like this?

You missed one point of the thread, I said only two Churches who have Real Presence, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church.

In the Real Presence, Jesus is truly Present Body, Blood, Soul, and DIvinity in the Blessed Sacrament.

While the majority of Protestant of the symbolic meaning of the Host of the Blessed Lord there is Not Substantial Presence. There however, Spiritual Presence in the Protestant Churches. If you read my Post carefully, I did not said Catholic only. I included, the Orthodox Church.

Symbolic Presence is not the Same as Real Presence in regarding to the Blessed Eucharist.

Protestants lack it, especially those in Evangelican Churches. They even received the Lord only once a month versus the first week which is practiced in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Gospels "commonly referred to as Breading of the Bread.

Now tell me who is Anti-Biblical. The Protestants. Their doctrines and belief are not Biblical. They are just **traditions of men **founded by Martin Luther, John Calvin etc.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Not all Protestant churches, but certainly many. I come from a holiness background, and I was also taught that the problem with Catholics was that they didn’t take sin and repentance seriously enough because of their “empty rituals,” particularly confession. My wife’s grandfather, a fairly prominent Methodist minister (and eventually seminary president), was relatively a lot more ecumenical than my family (he loved Thomas Merton’s work), but apparently he made the same criticism: that Catholics went to Mass on Sunday and then “lived like devils” all week long.

I would not assume that this attitude is dead among Protestants. For many evangelicals, the relatively laxer lifestyle of Catholics is a stumbling block. For some, I think it’s a stumbling block in the sense of temptation–to a limited extent it was for me.

Edwin

The chaff is allowed to grow with the wheat. We also have "cafeteria catholics and the "Christmas and Easter catholics and some in name only. Doesn’t every religion have its abberants?

But THEY are not what catholicism is all about.

 

[kell0618]

I would not assume that this attitude is dead among Protestants. For many evangelicals, the relatively laxer lifestyle of Catholics is a stumbling block. For some, I think it’s a stumbling block in the sense of temptation–to a limited extent it was for me.

Edwin

The words that I highlighted in bold within your quote puzzle me. I have been told twice within the last week by two non-Catholic Christians that anything that I did good during the week was a ‘dirty rag’ to God; that as long as I am Catholic, I am destined for hell. In your statements, you are careful to be sure no one thinks that you are generalizing on behalf of evangelicals or protestants, but proclaim that Catholics live a lax lifestyle without hesitation.

 

[kaysette]

I would not assume that this attitude is dead among Protestants. For many evangelicals, the relatively laxer lifestyle of Catholics is a stumbling block. For some, I think it’s a stumbling block in the sense of temptation–to a limited extent it was for me.

Edwin

Oh, I agree that this attitude is still alive and well among Protestants. I am not sure what you mean about the “relatively laxer lifestyle,” and “a stumbling block.” Could you elaborate?

I think the reason that people said what they said about the Catholics sinning all the time, then simply confessing and going to church was that the sinning ones were the ONLY ones they saw. There could have been many who were living good, moral lives, but naturally, they were not out doing bad things publically. I asked my mother about that recently. I said “were all the Catholics like that? Or did you just ASSUME that they were all like that?” She admitted, “I don’t know, maybe most of them did live good, moral lives. I just remember the bad ones.”

Isn’t that the case in any group? People don’t usually notice the good folks. They only see and judge groups by the bad ones.

In the last 10 years or so, I have met many good Christians who are Catholics. I have also met many who left the Catholic Church and sometimes they are part of the reason for some of the Protestants’ negative feelings. The X Catholics don’t do a lot to help the reputation of the church.

 

[Contarini]

Oh, I agree that this attitude is still alive and well among Protestants. I am not sure what you mean about the “relatively laxer lifestyle,” and “a stumbling block.” Could you elaborate?

Drinking, dancing, etc. The few occasions on which I think I’ve drunk more alcohol than I ought were all in the company of Catholics, as far as I can remember–and no, I don’t mean “not remember” as in “couldn’t remember the next morning”–I was never that drunk. Which is part of my point–I know Catholics who think that if you can remember the next morning, or at least if you keep basic control of your actions throughout, then getting a bit intoxicated isn’t a sin. Maybe they are right. But when you are brought up strictly as I was and think of any alcohol as sinful, it can be hard to keep one’s balance–not just in the literal sense!

One of my best Catholic friends–he was a groomsman at my wedding and most of my brushes with intoxication were in his company–actually was worried about this. He told me several times that he wasn’t sure I should drink, because I had not been brought up to do it and he was very dubious about whether it was a habit worth picking up if you didn’t already have it.

A particularly lurid example of how this can work is the case of Deal Hudson, who as a professor at Fordham took sexual advantage of a drunk student after a Mardi Gras gathering at a bar. Hudson was a former Southern Baptist drawn to Catholicism particularly because of the edgy, imaginative, often sexually charged fiction of 20th-century Catholic novelists (like Walker Percy). At my school, if I took students out to a bar to drink, I’d almost certainly be fired (or at least seriously called on the carpet for violation of my commitment to the university’s “community life policy”) even if nothing less innocuous happened. Maybe my institution is too strict in its rules–certainly most of the students and faculty think so–but the rules do have their uses.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The words that I highlighted in bold within your quote puzzle me. I have been told twice within the last week by two non-Catholic Christians that anything that I did good during the week was a ‘dirty rag’ to God; that as long as I am Catholic, I am destined for hell. In your statements, you are careful to be sure no one thinks that you are generalizing on behalf of evangelicals or protestants, but proclaim that Catholics live a lax lifestyle without hesitation.

Because that is the comparison I’m making–between a particular section of evangelicalism and Catholicism as a whole. I’m not making a judgment about Catholicism–I’m telling you how some evangelicals see it. However, as a generalization it’s fair to say that even strict Catholics usually think nothing of a glass of wine, or a relatively chaste dance, or even a game of bingo. Am I not right? Sure there are exceptions. But isn’t this a fair statement about most devout, practicing Catholics? And obviously if you generalize to the average Catholic attending the average parish, they do things that would make most evangelicals I know blush.

Furthermore, the hard truth about your unified Church is that one can generalize about Catholics more than about evangelicals. Independent Baptists, Pentecostals, and confessional Presbyterians can have diametrically different theologies. Catholics differ plenty among themselves, but they all are supposed to attend church together, and usually they do. So one can make statements about what would find in an average parish.

Edwin

 

[kaysette]

Thanks for sharing that. I think it is very important that Christians not violate their own conscience. And I also think that cultural teachings have a lot to do with this (so far as drinking - in moderation.) I would hate to think that someone would become Catholic just so they could drink. Or so they could seduce a student! But then, why does that surprise me? For every example you can give about a sinning Catholic, I could probably give you some about some sinning Protestants. Didn’t Jesus tell us that “the tares would grow up with the wheat?” Right until the end…

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Oh, I agree that this attitude is still alive and well among Protestants. I am not sure what you mean about the “relatively laxer lifestyle,” and “a stumbling block.” Could you elaborate?

I think the reason that people said what they said about the Catholics sinning all the time, then simply confessing and going to church was that the sinning ones were the ONLY ones they saw. There could have been many who were living good, moral lives, but naturally, they were not out doing bad things publically. I asked my mother about that recently. I said “were all the Catholics like that? Or did you just ASSUME that they were all like that?” She admitted, “I don’t know, maybe most of them did live good, moral lives. I just remember the bad ones.”

Isn’t that the case in any group? People don’t usually notice the good folks. They only see and judge groups by the bad ones.

In the last 10 years or so, I have met many good Christians who are Catholics. I have also met many who left the Catholic Church and sometimes they are part of the reason for some of the Protestants’ negative feelings. The X Catholics don’t do a lot to help the reputation of the church.

“…Catholic sinning all the time and confessing…” Makes you wonder if those Protestsnt observers are “shadowing” Catholics all day long or if they just hire Private Detectives.

Makes you wonder too about the passage: “…they see the splinter in their neighbor’s eye but do not see the log in their own eye…”

Maybe they should try putting the Private Detective on THEMSELVES for just one week. They will get an “EYEFUL !”

 

[estesbob]

A particularly lurid example of how this can work is the case of Deal Hudson, who as a professor at Fordham took sexual advantage of a drunk student after a Mardi Gras gathering at a bar. Hudson was a former Southern Baptist drawn to Catholicism particularly because of the edgy, imaginative, often sexually charged fiction of 20th-century Catholic novelists (like Walker Percy). At my school, if I took students out to a bar to drink, I’d almost certainly be fired (or at least seriously called on the carpet for violation of my commitment to the university’s “community life policy”) even if nothing less innocuous happened. Maybe my institution is too strict in its rules–certainly most of the students and faculty think so–but the rules do have their uses.

Edwin

Of course Deal Hudson lost his job and most of his credibility in the Church. In the Episcopal Church, however, one can dump his wife and kids , seduce another man, move in with him and be made a Bishop of the Church.

BTW-we might as well debunk some of the other stereotypes in your post-when i attend an AA meeting I am often the only Catholic there.

 

[cheddarsox]

Hmmm…I have been researching the CC for quite some time now. I have never met a Catholic, nor a priest, nor read anything which makes any such claim. In fact, I have been in awe of the fact that if I ask a Catholic, even a priest, a question, that they so easily can say “I don’t know.” (I ask tough questions, by the way!)

I am really not used to that type humility when asking any of my other spiritual leaders and peers these same questions in the past.

Since studying this church, I have seen answers which I have never before heard. “I don’t know,” “the church makes no statements on that,” “some things are MYSTERIES,” and “I don’t know, but I will see if I can find out for you.”

I love my Protestant brethren, but I have seen far less humility in this area with them, than I have seen in my contacts with Catholics. I don’t see what you are describing at all. Protestants are just as dogmatic in their pet doctrines and beliefs, if not more so. In fact, I would venture to say that they also believe in “popes.” They are just not called “popes,” and they usually have one in each church. And sometimes, they are even THEIR OWN POPE.

Now don’t get me wrong, if you personally didn’t like the Catholic church and you feel that you are learning more elsewhere, that is your perogative. I just don’t think you are being honest about the real reasons. Like I said before, EVERY church has offensive folks in them. EVERY church has those with wagging tongues and bad spirits. Personally, I think Protestants have better singers. And, sometimes, their services are much more entertaining. Not only that, there isn’t usually so much that makes you feel guilty and ashamed – not much dwelling on sin and hell for believers. It feels a lot better to think of myself as a “King’s Kid” who has been given all power in heaven and earth, and in which “God doesn’t see my sin anymore – only the blood of Jesus.” In fact, also kind of nice to hear that God wants me to prosper and get my bills paid, to heal my aches and pains and to give me perfect joy all the time.

Again, I am not referring to the PEOPLE in the Church, but the institution, the teachings of the faith. I do feel there are many that are the result of reactions to particular challenges in church history, or the result of creative theology that are simply wrong. But because they made it into the doctrine of the church,they are now “truth” and every one must accept them in order to be a true Catholic.

Because Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail, and that what was made bound on earth would be bound in heaven, the church uses that authority, but I do feel that sometimes a poor judgement was made about some teachings.

Ultimately, I do not think the gates of hell will prevail, but that does not mean that some erroneous things may not be taught or accepted along the way. They may have seemed good ideas at the time, or addressed some issue brought up at some point in history, but some things are poor and tortured theology.

But the Church claims perfection in its teachings. I think it does not walk humbly with God, and I am frightened about that. I remember hearing the reading that it would be better for a millstone to be tied around one’s neck than for one to lead someone astray concerning God. And I was convicted that some of the teachings of the church do indeed lead people astray. (topic for PM or another thread)

I am not a Protestant, nor have I made a comparison between how Protestants act, or react to their doctrine and how Catholics do. That is not an issue to me. I wrote only of one of the reasons I left the Catholic church. It was not because I felt someone else was doing it better.

I left because I truly believe that there are areas in which the Catholic Church is in grave error. It had nothing to do with how anyone else was doing anything.

At the time, I knew next to nothing about Protestantism. I made a decision about Catholicism based on itself alone.

I don’t understand why you think I would be dishonest about my reasons for leaving the Catholic church. What would the point of that be?

I am regularly asked, by Catholics, why I left the church, and then they like to tell me that I left for another reason. What’s up with that? Why ask, and then argue what was going on in my mind and soul? I understand and accept that you might disagree with my reasoning, and think I made a misinformed or bad decision, but why argue and tell me I don’t know my own mind?

I gain nothing by telling you false reasons why I left.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Again, I am not referring to the PEOPLE in the Church, but the institution, the teachings of the faith. I do feel there are many that are the result of reactions to particular challenges in church history, or the result of creative theology that are simply wrong. But because they made it into the doctrine of the church,they are now “truth” and every one must accept them in order to be a true Catholic.

Because Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail, and that what was made bound on earth would be bound in heaven, the church uses that authority, but I do feel that sometimes a poor judgement was made about some teachings.

Ultimately, I do not think the gates of hell will prevail, but that does not mean that some erroneous things may not be taught or accepted along the way. They may have seemed good ideas at the time, or addressed some issue brought up at some point in history, but some things are poor and tortured theology.

But the Church claims perfection in its teachings. I think it does not walk humbly with God, and I am frightened about that. I remember hearing the reading that it would be better for a millstone to be tied around one’s neck than for one to lead someone astray concerning God. And I was convicted that some of the teachings of the church do indeed lead people astray. (topic for PM or another thread)

I am not a Protestant, nor have I made a comparison between how Protestants act, or react to their doctrine and how Catholics do. That is not an issue to me. I wrote only of one of the reasons I left the Catholic church. It was not because I felt someone else was doing it better.

I left because I truly believe that there are areas in which the Catholic Church is in grave error. It had nothing to do with how anyone else was doing anything.

At the time, I knew next to nothing about Protestantism. I made a decision about Catholicism based on itself alone.

I don’t understand why you think I would be dishonest about my reasons for leaving the Catholic church. What would the point of that be?

I am regularly asked, by Catholics, why I left the church, and then they like to tell me that I left for another reason. What’s up with that? Why ask, and then argue what was going on in my mind and soul? I understand and accept that you might disagree with my reasoning, and think I made a misinformed or bad decision, but why argue and tell me I don’t know my own mind?

I gain nothing by telling you false reasons why I left.

Cheddar, whether you like it or not, you are a Protestant Christian. You aren’t Catholic, you aren’t even Orthodox. So you are the other Christian, a Protestant Christian.

The Teachings of the Church are revealed Truth. They have been handed down to us from the bishops who received it from the Apostles, and the Apostles received it from Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ himself received His authority from the Father.

I feel your reasons for living are totally based on your misunderstanding of the Catholic Church. You are Protestant because your rely on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidis. The Two Pillars of Protestantism…

 

[cheddarsox]

The Catholic Church has never claimed to be perfect. If you feel otherwise, please provide references to Church documents.

The Church has never claimed to be impeccable. If you feel otherwise, please provide references to Church documents.

The Church has claimed to be infallible in matters of faith and morals - but not in other matters. This is based upon the promises and work of God and not because of something that originates within the Church itself. Infallibility is a God-thing, not a man-thing.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

I believe that the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail is an ULTIMATE promise, not a promise that no error in teaching will ever occur.

Over time the church has made certain faith decisions based on certain things that occured in history, and the work of some theologists. Some of these things, I am convicted, are wrong, and uneccessary for either salvation or a honest relationship with God.

So, yes, I left because I do not agree with some church teachings, and upon studying their origin, I think they have little merit or purpose except to play the role of stumbling block. And it does concern me that the Church sees itself as infallible. Once something is declared doctrine…that’s it.

I do not think the church should change with every wind in culture. Not by any means.

I do think a church has the right to make whatever demands of faith, morals and behavior that it so chooses on its members. But I also think that any institution consisting of individuals will sometimes make mistakes.

I left, because I could not accept the teachings (that it has the right to make) and one of the teachings I could not accept was the one concerning infallibility. It strikes me as being dangerously prideful.

I am sure you see my leaving as dangerously prideful as well. So be it. I don’t expect us to agree on this issue. Nor is it my intention to change your mind about the Catholic faith.

This is my issue. I don’t desire to make it everyone else’s as well.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

Cheddar, whether you like it or not, you are a Protestant Christian. You aren’t Catholic, you aren’t even Orthodox. So you are the other Christian, a Protestant Christian.

The Teachings of the Church are revealed Truth. They have been handed down to us from the bishops who received it from the Apostles, and the Apostles received it from Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ himself received His authority from the Father.

I feel your reasons for living are totally based on your misunderstanding of the Catholic Church. You are Protestant because your rely on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidis. The Two Pillars of Protestantism…

No Manny, I am a Pantheist. I do not rely on Sola Scriptura or Sola Fidis. I am willing to discuss things amiably, as long as people let me speak for myself, don’t tell me what I am, what I believe, why I do what I do, etc.

I am a fairly intelligent, well spoken, middle aged woman, and do not need even well meaning Catholics to speak for me, misrepresent my position, etc.

If you want to know where I stand. I am happy to respond. I will also give you the respect of allowing you to speak for and represent yourself, and not tell you who and what you are and what you believe.

No matter how good a Catholic you are, or how familiar you are with the Catechism, it does not give you the ability to know everything about me, my life and my faith.

Please allow me to speak for myself, and I will do the same for you. That is how we learn about one another.

I enjoy discussion, but am getting tired of having people tell me, about me.

cheddar

 

[Mannyfit75]

No Manny, I am a Pantheist. I do not rely on Sola Scriptura or Sola Fidis. I am willing to discuss things amiably, as long as people let me speak for myself, don’t tell me what I am, what I believe, why I do what I do, etc.

I am a fairly intelligent, well spoken, middle aged woman, and do not need even well meaning Catholics to speak for me, misrepresent my position, etc.

If you want to know where I stand. I am happy to respond. I will also give you the respect of allowing you to speak for and represent yourself, and not tell you who and what you are and what you believe.

No matter how good a Catholic you are, or how familiar you are with the Catechism, it does not give you the ability to know everything about me, my life and my faith.

Please allow me to speak for myself, and I will do the same for you. That is how we learn about one another.

I enjoy discussion, but am getting tired of having people tell me, about me.

cheddar

What’s a Patheist?

 

[Mannyfit75]

No Manny, I am a Pantheist. I do not rely on Sola Scriptura or Sola Fidis. I am willing to discuss things amiably, as long as people let me speak for myself, don’t tell me what I am, what I believe, why I do what I do, etc.

I am a fairly intelligent, well spoken, middle aged woman, and do not need even well meaning Catholics to speak for me, misrepresent my position, etc.

If you want to know where I stand. I am happy to respond. I will also give you the respect of allowing you to speak for and represent yourself, and not tell you who and what you are and what you believe.

No matter how good a Catholic you are, or how familiar you are with the Catechism, it does not give you the ability to know everything about me, my life and my faith.

Please allow me to speak for myself, and I will do the same for you. That is how we learn about one another.

I enjoy discussion, but am getting tired of having people tell me, about me.

cheddar

I’m pretty much familiar with the teachings of the Church, but there are things I still do not know. My mind is finite not infinite.

 

[cheddarsox]

What’s a Patheist?

The term is Pantheist.

It is a non-Christian faith…and a subject for another thread or a PM.

I don’t discuss the tenants of my faith within the context of threads on Catholicism because it is not my intent to prosteletyze, or hijack threads.

 

[estesbob]

What’s a Patheist?

Kinda like “the force” of Star wars fame

pantheism.net/manifest.htm

 

[MarisStella]

The term is Pantheist.

It is a non-Christian faith…and a subject for another thread or a PM.

I don’t discuss the tenants of my faith within the context of threads on Catholicism because it is not my intent to prosteletyze, or hijack threads.

A non-Christian pantheist? As a non-Christian, I assume you don’t believe in Jesus Christ (He was God, He rose from the dead, etc., etc.) Yet, you also stated that you believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (quite a few posts ago) and you even mentioned to someone that you might just be the person kneeling next to them at adoration?
Sounds like a confusing, irrational set of beliefs to me…