Non-Catholic Christians: Why no belief in real presence of Jesus in Eucharist

[Nine_Two]

My protestant friend claims that she IS taking Christ’s words literally when she argues:

Tell her that’s not what is means.

 

[JonNC]

This is how a protestant friend explained her belief to me:

Jesus said, “This is my body.” He didn’t say, “Every time you go to church some guy in a robe can turn bread and wine into my body.”

Jesus also said, “Do this in memory of me,” indicating that communion is, in fact, a symbolic memorial service.

The only thing I can tell you, Betty, is that “Do this in memory of me” has to refer to what we do. What is it that Christ said we do? We take and eat His true body, as He tells us to do.

As for some guy in a robe, Christ puts the sacraments in the hands of the clergy, following the lead of the apostles.

Jon

 

[BettyBoop416]

Tell her that’s not what is means.

Well, I can tell her that’s not what the Church teaches that it means, but as a non-Catholic, she’s not particularly moved by Church teaching. From her perspective, it’s a mighty big leap from “This (the bread Christ held in his hand at the last supper) is my body” to “the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, and ONLY the Catholic Church, is also my body.”

 

[asd72]

And a MEMORIAL from a Jewish perpective doesn’t just mean looking back and remembering something. It means making present ( re-presenting) that event.

 

[JonNC]

Well, I can tell her that’s not what the Church teaches that it means, but as a non-Catholic, she’s not particularly moved by Church teaching. From her perspective, it’s a mighty big leap from “This (the bread Christ held in his hand at the last supper) is my body” to “the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, and ONLY the Catholic Church, is also my body.”

Then tell her its what Luther taught. But then, i suspect she will be unmoved by that, as well.

Jon

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, I can tell her that’s not what the Church teaches that it means, but as a non-Catholic, she’s not particularly moved by Church teaching. From her perspective, it’s a mighty big leap from “This (the bread Christ held in his hand at the last supper) is my body” to “the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, and ONLY the Catholic Church, is also my body.”

Actually, I meant that “This is my body”, taken literally, means you’re saying something actually is your body. The word “is” being the operative word, the present form of “to be”.

 

[Radical]

It is a ping pong match of what is written in John, what the ECF say and then there is Radical, the most brilliant mind of the 16th century living today noting his rendition of the ECF.

well thanks…that was very sweet of you

The problem with that argument is of course that memorializing something does not make it symbolic.

you are right…but since the thing starts out as a symbol, the act of memorializing doesn’t need to change the bread/wine into a symbol.

If I listen to music in memory of a friend who has died, the music is very real.

Right again, the music is real…it can be heard. It is not as if one hears one thing (say a dog’s bark) and then is told that it is another very different thing (U2’s I Still Haven’t Found What I am Looking For) The music is present and one can sense it….your friend, however, is not made bodily present by the act of memorializing

And a MEMORIAL from a Jewish perpective doesn’t just mean looking back and remembering something. It means making present ( re-presenting) that event.

agreed…the Lord’s Supper was a alteration of the Passover meal. In the Passover the deliverance (of the Israelites) was made present, but nothing such as the Red Sea, Moses, or Pharaoh was made bodily present.

I actually like Radical but as the name goes so the postings go.

It seems that what I see as common sense, you see as radical…go figure

 

[BettyBoop416]

Tell her that’s not what is means.

Oops…I read this as “…what IT means.”

 

[Nine_Two]

well thanks…that was very sweet of you
you are right…but since the thing starts out as a symbol, the act of memorializing doesn’t need to change the bread/wine into a symbol.

Right again, the music is real…it can be heard. It is not as if one hears one thing (say a dog’s bark) and then is told that it is another very different thing (U2’s I Still Haven’t Found What I am Looking For) The music is present and one can sense it….your friend, however, is not made bodily present by the act of memorializing
agreed…the Lord’s Supper was a alteration of the Passover meal. In the Passover the deliverance (of the Israelites) was made present, but nothing such as the Red Sea, Moses, or Pharaoh was made bodily present.
It seems that what I see as common sense, you see as radical…go figure

So how do you make the leap from “this is” to “symbol”?

 

[Crumpy]

And a MEMORIAL from a Jewish perpective doesn’t just mean looking back and remembering something. It means making present ( re-presenting) that event.

The Passover Seder is an extension of the first passover. The modern Jews are taught that they were there when the covenant was given at Sinai and they were there when the first Passover was celebrated. So, in other words, the modern seder is as real as the first passover seder.

 

[Nicea325]

So many Christians take every detail in the Bible literally, except for that one little part in the Gospel of John? Interesting, please explain.

Easily,because it conflicts with their novel beliefs and late beliefs not-related to ancient orthodoxy.

 

[asd72]

well thanks…that was very sweet of you
you are right…but since the thing starts out as a symbol, the act of memorializing doesn’t need to change the bread/wine into a symbol.

Right again, the music is real…it can be heard. It is not as if one hears one thing (say a dog’s bark) and then is told that it is another very different thing (U2’s I Still Haven’t Found What I am Looking For) The music is present and one can sense it….your friend, however, is not made bodily present by the act of memorializing
agreed…the Lord’s Supper was a alteration of the Passover meal. In the Passover the deliverance (of the Israelites) was made present, but nothing such as the Red Sea, Moses, or Pharaoh was made bodily present.
It seems that what I see as common sense, you see as radical…go figure

We don’t see the consecrated bread and wine at the last supper “start out” as a symbol Radical.

“Jesus did not simply state what he was giving them to eat and drink was his body and blood; he also expressed it’s sacrificial meaning and made sacramentally present his sacrifice which would soon be offered on the Cross for the salvation of all.” (John Paul II)

 

[mick321]

Why ask why?

The notion that the bishops and popes of Catholic Church of the current era (since Vatican II Council) have as their aim the conversion of Protestant Christians to the Catholic Church is…

A SERIOUS DOCTRINAL ERROR.

How so many people in this forum could be promoting this doctrinal error with no one in authority correcting it is incomprehensible to me.

Just read the Vatican II Council’s documents, especially these:

vatican.va/archive/hist_c…gratio_en.html

vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

vatican.va/archive/hist_c…gentes_en.html

vatican.va/archive/hist_c…umanae_en.html

Also read this clarifying document by Cardinal Ratzinger, using a correct theological understanding of the crucial terms “subjective” and “objectively”:
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…-iesus_en.html

Also see this from a recent Synod of Bishops (Catholic) and approved by the pope:
vatican.va/roman_curia/sy…sembly_en.html (all about the “New Evangelization”)

Jimmy Akins wrote a book called “Mass Confusion” about confusion about the liturgy. But he really needs to write one about what the “New Evangelization” means and doesn’t mean.

Protestants don’t have any general need to “convert.” They are already members of the same Church as are Catholics. Blessed John Paul II CONSTANTLY repeated both to these truths. Pope Benedict XVI does the same.

Anyone who says that in general Protestants must “convert” in order to be saved or in order to have a better chance of attaining eternal life are DISSENTERS who are operating on their own private agenda that is flatly disapproved of by the Catholic pope and bishops. There are right wing Catholic dissenting groups, and one can join them if one wants. It is a free country. But just know that you are a dissenter.

**Bartolome Casas **
Junior Member
Join Date: November 24, 2011
Posts: 291
Religion: Catholic

 

[Radical]

So how do you make the leap from “this is” to “symbol”?

Well, “is” means “is”, right? The question is does “is” mean “is changed into” or “is a symbol of” or “is in some other way”? The regulars around here seem to think that it is always the first option (and that a leap is needed for the other two)…Here is another passage where Christ used that same word:

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

In verse 47 it would seem that the Jews are talking about a biological mother and biological brothers and in verse 50, “is” definitely does not mean “is changed into”. When one can see that the disciples had not been transformed into his mother and siblings it is rather obvious that Christ was not speaking literally. Likewise, when his disciples could that the bread had not been transformed into a duplicate body (so that Jesus’s hands which were attached to his actual body by his arms were not also holding his actual body), it is rather obvious that Christ was not speaking literally. No “leap” is needed on my part.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Perhaps you can help me understand things a bit better, and work out the truth? How do you know Jesus meant what He said at the Last Supper literally? About the sacrifice of the Mass - Catholics believe that Jesus’ death was a once-for-all sacrifice, don’t they? Hebrews 10 v11-12 says that Jesus offered one sacrifice for all time, and then sat down at the right hand of the Father. How does that fit with the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass?

God is Eternal which means He is outside of time thus the past and the future are always present to Him. Thus the Mass is a participation in the one sacred sacrifice of calvary. God feeds His sheep, and the food is heavenly food.

In nature a “law of communion” governs all living things: “No food–means No Life”. In order to live one must eat. Man is both body and spirit, thus the food for the spirit is eternal food (God Himself). A sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ to give us sanctifying grace. The Eucharist is that visible sign: He feeds us in physical form because we are body and spirit. Here is an image which may help you.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Why don’t protestants believe that the consecrated bread and wine in a Catholic Mass are the Body and Blood of Christ, as Jesus toldl us?

Please address the fact that there was a universal belief in this doctrine for centures?

This issue is complicated on several different levels.

For one thing, you cannot paint Protestants with a brush, as though there is one standard for all. There are those who believe in the Real Presence fervently (myself included), and good examples would be Lutherans, many Anglicans/Episcopalians, etc. To assume that all Protestants disbelieve in the Real Presence is like saying that because someone believes in the Real Presence, they automatically adhere to the doctrine of transubstantiation. We know, however that this is not the case; so if it is like that for one group, why apply it to another?

Getting down the nitty-gritty of it:

Likely they do not believe in the Real Presence because they were taught that doctrine was, and taught another way of approaching the Eucharist (spiritual presence, memorialim, etc.) Just as you were taught growing up as a Catholic (here I am presuming you were raised Catholic- if you were not, pardon my presumption) that the Eucharist contains the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

And do not go, “But, it is in the Bible! It is so clear!” For one thing, is that not the same argument made against so many Catholic doctrines and dogmas? Secondly, what is clear to one may not be clear to another. The Scriptures are indeed God’s Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, like anything else, they can be interpreted in many ways, and made to say many things. What is clear to a Catholic in John 6 as being a reference to the doctrine of the Real Presence may be taken by a Baptist to mean living by faith in Christ.

Most persons do not disbelieve because do not believe Jesus’ words, or they do not wish to be obedient to the Pope (the Real Presence is something that is not contingent on the Papacy), or any other notion we could throw out. Rather, again, it is how they were raised.

And, in some cases, it is simply because they have not examined the evidence, and have come to the conclusion that they cannot believe it, for whatever reason. We need to exercise patience and charity- for just as they have difficulty with the Real Presence, how much more do we have difficulty with some teaching or another?

“Lord, I believe; help Thou my unbelief.”

 

[onemangang]

This issue is complicated on several different levels.

For one thing, you cannot paint Protestants with a brush, as though there is one standard for all. There are those who believe in the Real Presence fervently (myself included), and good examples would be Lutherans, many Anglicans/Episcopalians, etc. To assume that all Protestants disbelieve in the Real Presence is like saying that because someone believes in the Real Presence, they automatically adhere to the doctrine of transubstantiation. We know, however that this is not the case; so if it is like that for one group, why apply it to another?

Getting down the nitty-gritty of it:

Likely they do not believe in the Real Presence because they were taught that doctrine was, and taught another way of approaching the Eucharist (spiritual presence, memorialim, etc.) Just as you were taught growing up as a Catholic (here I am presuming you were raised Catholic- if you were not, pardon my presumption) that the Eucharist contains the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

And do not go, “But, it is in the Bible! It is so clear!” For one thing, is that not the same argument made against so many Catholic doctrines and dogmas? Secondly, what is clear to one may not be clear to another. The Scriptures are indeed God’s Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, like anything else, they can be interpreted in many ways, and made to say many things. What is clear to a Catholic in John 6 as being a reference to the doctrine of the Real Presence may be taken by a Baptist to mean living by faith in Christ.

Most persons do not disbelieve because do not believe Jesus’ words, or they do not wish to be obedient to the Pope (the Real Presence is something that is not contingent on the Papacy), or any other notion we could throw out. Rather, again, it is how they were raised.

And, in some cases, it is simply because they have not examined the evidence, and have come to the conclusion that they cannot believe it, for whatever reason. We need to exercise patience and charity- for just as they have difficulty with the Real Presence, how much more do we have difficulty with some teaching or another?

“Lord, I believe; help Thou my unbelief.”

Good post

It boils down to viewing the Eucharist through the lens of the perspective TRADITION in which the individual was raised. One is taught to believe their view, through a social order!

Now, does that teaching within each social order come out of an Apostolic Tradition, or a man made one?

Has the truth of the Eucharist been revealed to men?

Through which medium?

God bless!

 

[CopticChristian]

Good post

It boils down to viewing the Eucharist through the lens of the perspective TRADITION in which the individual was raised. One is taught to believe their view, through a social order!

Now, does that teaching within each social order come out of an Apostolic Tradition, or a man made one?

Has the truth of the Eucharist been revealed to men?

Through which medium?

God bless!

I believe you are on to something that I have spoken of before. The perspective is the Oral Tradtion.

journal.oraltradition.org/issues/25i

Here you will see and can download and read this article about Oral Traditions. I have not completely read it however I will.

I also suggest you consider that what is called a “meme” is at work here. You will find this discussed in the book “Virus of the Mind”. It is just thoughts that are transmitted in time from group to group as you say.

Consider that the OHCAC tradition is as you say Apostolic and in consideration that it has not changed is of one type as seen in the common beliefs of Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic East and West.

Next consider that all Protestant thought for the most part flows through Lutheran, Calvinistic/Reformed, Anglican or Methodist thought. Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII were Catholic and John Wesley was Anglican. When you consider this then you will see the variety of expressions of the traditions that have transmitted these “eucharistic memes” or oral traditions…

If the Bible was the source of all Christian thought then there should be a consensus on the “Lord’s Supper” and there is not. This is indirect proof that the Bible is not, was not and should never be the rule of Faith. This denies that they all be one, that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, etc.

 

[Bklynguy]

Why don’t protestants believe that the consecrated bread and wine in a Catholic Mass are the Body and Blood of Christ, as Jesus toldl us?

Please address the fact that there was a universal belief in this doctrine for centures?

Because the “Bible-Believing” and “Sola Scriptura” Christians feel at liberty to pick and choose the parts of scripture they wish to follow.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, “is” means “is”, right? The question is does “is” mean “is changed into” or “is a symbol of” or “is in some other way”? The regulars around here seem to think that it is always the first option (and that a leap is needed for the other two)…Here is another passage where Christ used that same word:

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

In verse 47 it would seem that the Jews are talking about a biological mother and biological brothers and in verse 50, “is” definitely does not mean “is changed into”. When one can see that the disciples had not been transformed into his mother and siblings it is rather obvious that Christ was not speaking literally. Likewise, when his disciples could that the bread had not been transformed into a duplicate body (so that Jesus’s hands which were attached to his actual body by his arms were not also holding his actual body), it is rather obvious that Christ was not speaking literally. No “leap” is needed on my part.

“Is” it so simple or “is” it not so simple. I suppose if I were meeting in a town hall where some Protestants were trying to convince the population on what Christianity “is” and should be then when we all take a vote…we can make Christianity whatever we vote it to be. You make a good argument for “is” however when you look at a Protestant source like Strong’s concordance for the word “is” as it “is” used in the passage from Luke, this “is” my body the numerous translations possible leave more unanswered questions as to what this means that what you say.

concordances.org/greek/1510.htm

1510 [e]
estin

eimi: I exist, I am
Original Word: εἰμί
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: eimi
Phonetic Spelling: (i-mee’)
Short Definition: I am, exist
Definition: I am, exist.

Definition

I exist, I am

NASB Word Usage

accompanied* (1), accompany* (2), am (138), amount (1), amounts (1), appear* (1), asserted* (1), become* (5), been (45), been* (1), being (26), belong (3), belonged* (1), belonging (1), belonging* (1), belongs (4), bring* (1), came (1), come (5), consist (1), crave* (1), depends* (1), do (1), done* (1), exist (3), existed (4), existed* (1), falls (1), found (1), had (8), happen (4), have (2), have come (1), lived (1), mean (1), mean* (2), means (7), meant (2), originate (1), owns (1), remain (3), remained (1), rest (1), sided (1), stayed (2), themselves (1), there (6), turn (1).

The choice is to try to wrestle with the passage and the word “is” believe Radical and leave the church or believe that the OHCAC was speaking, writing, believing and transmitting what this passage meant. I know what I will do.