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

[Radical]

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.

You are trying way too hard…Tell me, when you look at the passage where Jesus said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven IS my brother and sister and mother.” …does Strong’s leave you flummoxed b/c “the numerous translations possible leave more unanswered questions as to what this means”…or is it that an iota of common sense can solve the conundrum? For your sake I’ll hope that the iota of common sense resolves the issue…so then, how does the application of that same common sense prove to be so difficult for you when Jesus said, “This IS my body”?

The choice is to try to wrestle with the passage and the word “is”…

no wrestling is needed…just a smidgen of common sense.

…believe Radical and leave the church…

actually, the majority of the Church understands Jesus’ use of “IS” in an non-literal fashion…no transformation of the substance of bread to body involved.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Protestants see communion as symbolic rather than literal. I guess they don’t believe in cannibalism.

 

[adf417]

Protestants see communion as symbolic rather than literal. I guess they don’t believe in cannibalism.

You might want to stick to the more theological reasons that are persistent from Protestants. This argument implies that Catholics actually do turn the bread and wine into something human.

God Bless

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It seems that what I see as common sense

What is common sense to you?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

[bibledrb]Mark 14:22-24[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Mt 26:26-28[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Lk 22:15-20[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Jn 6:51[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Jn 6:53-56[/bibledrb]
I mean, just WOW!!! Lord of Lords and King of Kings!!! Have mercy on us.

[bibledrb]Jn 6:60[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Jn 6:66[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]1 Cor 10:16[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]1 Cor 11:24-26[/bibledrb]

Nuff’ said.

That is common sense to me.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

You might want to stick to the more theological reasons that are persistent from Protestants. This argument implies that Catholics actually do turn the bread and wine into something human.

God Bless

Well, they do… When the priest prays over it, it becomes Jesus flesh and blood. That’s the belief.

 

[mark_a]

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.

Your friend could stand to listen to Brant Pietre’s “The Jewish roots of the Eucharist”.

 

[adf417]

Well, they do… When the priest prays over it, it becomes Jesus flesh and blood. That’s the belief.

Mine too!!

 

[Little_Mary]

This topic may have been talked to death already, but it’s a good topic and you never know who just signed on and might get something out of it…same could be said for many topics. But that’s just my opinion. It is definitely a good idea to search for existing threads on topics but new peole might not know that.

There is another answer that I’ve heard from protestants and protestant pastors alike that I find even more troubling than not believing in the real presence and that is,

“Oh I totally believe that Christ is truly present in communion in any church setting. If you believe it in your heart then he is really there no matter what church you go to”

Oy.

 

[Little_Mary]

You might want to stick to the more theological reasons that are persistent from Protestants. This argument implies that Catholics actually do turn the bread and wine into something human.

God Bless

Uh…they do. Catholic priests make it possible. Christ works through them and the bread and wine become the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Once that happens, it is no longer bread and wine.

 

[bobballen_18]

I also wonder about what non-Catholics think about the miracle in the 8th century, with the Basilian Monk, of the body and blood visibly turning into human flesh and blood, since (I think) it has been proven to be legitimate.

 

[CopticChristian]

This topic may have been talked to death already, but it’s a good topic and you never know who just signed on and might get something out of it…same could be said for many topics. But that’s just my opinion. It is definitely a good idea to search for existing threads on topics but new peole might not know that.

There is another answer that I’ve heard from protestants and protestant pastors alike that I find even more troubling than not believing in the real presence and that is,

“Oh I totally believe that Christ is truly present in communion in any church setting. If you believe it in your heart then he is really there no matter what church you go to”

Oy.

I would ask that Protestant pastor…would this be true for Jehovah Witness and Mormons as well?

 

[CopticChristian]

I also wonder about what non-Catholics think about the miracle in the 8th century, with the Basilian Monk, of the body and blood visibly turning into human flesh and blood, since (I think) it has been proven to be legitimate.

The issue of miracles has also been beaten to death and discounted by our own Radical.

 

[Little_Mary]

I would ask that Protestant pastor…would this be true for Jehovah Witness and Mormons as well?

Good question!

 

[Nicea325]

You are trying way too hard…Tell me, when you look at the passage where Jesus said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven IS my brother and sister and mother.” …does Strong’s leave you flummoxed b/c “the numerous translations possible leave more unanswered questions as to what this means”…or is it that an iota of common sense can solve the conundrum? For your sake I’ll hope that the iota of common sense resolves the issue…so then, how does the application of that same common sense prove to be so difficult for you when Jesus said, “This IS my body”?
no wrestling is needed…just a smidgen of common sense.

actually, the majority of the Church understands Jesus’ use of “IS” in an non-literal fashion…no transformation of the substance of bread to body involved.

EXACTLY! If it all takes is common sense to believe the Eucharist is merely symbolic as you believe,then how odd not ONE ECF had the common sense to teach the RP is heretical and great usurpation of Christ teaching? Still waiting to read a primary source Radical from ONE ECF teaching the RP is heretical…still nothing from you. Why is that? The “majority” makes it Truth? Just like the majority followed the Arian heresy at one point in time?

 

[TrueLight]

I have a theory that it is simply because Protestants lacked a truly consecrated Eucharist for nearly 500 years. As such, venerating their communion host would indeed be objectively idolatrous.

If the human soul really does commune with God during the Eucharist, then the Protestants would gradually notice that nothing is happening when they receive their communion, and then gradually loose their faith in the True Presence altogether.

Since Protestants are barred from receiving Catholic Communion in most cases, then they’d have little reason to believe our Holy Mass is any different from their communion service. Casually observing Catholics, they might erroneously conclude that we Catholics are dangerously worshiping mere bread!

I never even knew until last year that Catholics had a literal interpretation of “This is my body”.

 

[bobballen_18]

The issue of miracles has also been beaten to death and discounted by our own Radical.

But how can he ignore it? What does he say? Didn’t it happen?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But how can he ignore it? What does he say? Didn’t it happen?

It’s called post-modernism.

The idea is to deconstruct the basis and/or fundamental statement word for word. Once you are able to find a word that can be deconstructed then you are able to realign the meaning of the original statement. All the while, you ignore the natural rules of logic and reason. Since you are kinda doing “reverse reasoning” you apply what is known by some as “poetic license” only you deconstruct the word poetic:

po-et-ic: of, relating to, or characteristic of poets or poetry.

Now we move unto deconstructing poetry.

po-et-ry: writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm.

Now we take the words imaginative and emotional out.

po-et-ry: : writing that formulates a concentrated awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific response through meaning, sound, and rhythm.

We have more than one option for the response, but we are free to choose the one that fits our proposed argument. We are also free to redefine the meaning as necessary.

It’s similar agnosticism. You avoid taking a specific opinion in order to have freedom to “wiggle” around.

St James called it dual minded thou.

However, in some cases you have to deconstruct into a defined position in order to set a foundation for the rest of your “common sense”.

It also works consistently with the Judicial Jury system in a criminal trial. If there is one (1) person that disagrees (or in the case of reverse reasoning - one person who has voiced something that is not in harmony to the established practice) then regardless of having a majority, the verdict is not-guilty. There is no “preponderance of evidence”. So if you are able to get a “hung” jury then you have done your job. The point is to create doubt and confusion while ignoring the actual truth.

Peace

 

[CopticChristian]

But how can he ignore it? What does he say? Didn’t it happen?

Look at Radicals profile and you will see that Radical started two posts. One is on the Eucharist. It is a dialogue with Radical and Pneuma. It is a polite dialogue. Radical leans on Tertullian and certain ECF. Radical also usues other relatively modern theologians that allow for him to convince himself of his position. I suppose if I wanted to deny something I could get a string of information that satisfied my denial. Read it and understand.

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s called post-modernism.

The idea is to deconstruct the basis and/or fundamental statement word for word. Once you are able to find a word that can be deconstructed then you are able to realign the meaning of the original statement. All the while, you ignore the natural rules of logic and reason. Since you are kinda doing “reverse reasoning” you apply what is known by some as “poetic license” only you deconstruct the word poetic:

po-et-ic: of, relating to, or characteristic of poets or poetry.

Now we move unto deconstructing poetry.

po-et-ry: writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm.

Now we take the words imaginative and emotional out.

po-et-ry: : writing that formulates a concentrated awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific response through meaning, sound, and rhythm.

We have more than one option for the response, but we are free to choose the one that fits our proposed argument. We are also free to redefine the meaning as necessary.

It’s similar agnosticism. You avoid taking a specific opinion in order to have freedom to “wiggle” around.

St James called it dual minded thou.

However, in some cases you have to deconstruct into a defined position in order to set a foundation for the rest of your “common sense”.

It also works consistently with the Judicial Jury system in a criminal trial. If there is one (1) person that disagrees (or in the case of reverse reasoning - one person who has voiced something that is not in harmony to the established practice) then regardless of having a majority, the verdict is not-guilty. There is no “preponderance of evidence”. So if you are able to get a “hung” jury then you have done your job. The point is to create doubt and confusion while ignoring the actual truth.

Peace

It is also part of the historic way that Protestants spread their message. They would ride from town to town and in town hall meetings gather those that agreed and disagreed. They would put forth their arguments and then get votes to change what the church would be. It became a political process similar to our caucuses. Radical’s arguments appear like that as he for instance dwells on the word “is”…this is my body without expecting anyone to recognize that the word is was spoken in aramaic, translated into Greek, then Latin and then English for us to read as “is”. If you look at the Greek the word used for “is” that Radical chooses to base an argument on falls apart when you realize that the Greek word means more than “is”…