Protestant Argument of the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter beachieca
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Dorothy:
I’m not sure if I misunderstand you or not, but I just wanted to add that Catholics believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was sacrificed once, for all, and that the Mass is bringing us to that moment; it is broken up in time and space for us!
This is true. To build on this: Christ died ONCE and for ALL. This perfect and complete sacrifice of the New Covenant happened one time and is present in time and space on this earth until Christ comes again in Glory. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the participation in this one sacrifice of Christ that is present for All until the second coming. Not that we can add to the sacrifice in any way, for it was done but one time and was perfect, but that that sacrifice is re-presented to us until the final judgement so that we may actively participate in it.
 
this may be why many protestant churches have had to down - play the Eucharist. Because, unfortunately it becomes as an idol to some who don’t understand the reality of a living Christ. If the Eucharist truly is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, how could there possibly be ANY need to “downplay” that? How could Christ possibly become an idol? The definition of an idol is a false god. Christ can never be a false god.
I’m sure if you’ve read the Gospels you’re aware that many of the Jews at Jesus’ time saw the Law as a means of saving themselves rather than allowing it to show them their need for a Savior. Did that make the Law bad or an obstacle to their salvation? Of course not! People take the good that God offers them and they twist it or misunderstand it, but that doesn’t make the good thing bad. Cults like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses take the Bible and use it to support their false teachings, so do we therefore conclude the Bible needs to be downplayed so people don’t use it to teach things that aren’t true? The answer isn’t to “downplay” any truth, but to teach the truth to people so they *do *understand.
Which comes first? … the good behavior/transformation or the partaking?
Simply partaking of the Eucharist will not automatically transform us, just like simply listening to the Gospel and not responding to it will not change us. Change isn’t often instantaneous–often it is gradual, over time. Like Jesus said in the parable of the sower, God’s Word falls on all sorts of hearts, and it’s the condition of the heart that determines whether or not fruit will be borne in that heart and how much. So it is when we receive the Word of God made flesh, Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
Would a Catholic say, I felt called to communion with Christ, I prayerfully accepted the sacrament, and THEN my heart was changed, and I had no desire to sin as I had before?
Catholics are supposed to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, meaning being in a state of grace --saved. Our hearts have already been changed *before *we receive the Eucharist. Like I mentioned before, for most of us change is a gradual process. We don’t receive the Eucharist and have an instant transformation where we have no desire at all to sin. That’s why Jesus continually offers Himself to us in the Eucharist – we continually need His grace to resist sin and grow in sanctity. He doesn’t set a requirement for us where we have to have achieved a certain level of sanctity in order to receive Him or continue to receive Him. None of the Protestant churches I belonged to over a period of 20 years taught that Christians were expected to make dramatic transformations after reading the Bible, praying, going to church or receiving communion.
Or does a Catholic say, I must be good and not sin THEN I am worthy to go accept the sacrament? And unless I accept it each Sunday, I will fall back into my sinful nature? A Catholic is to abstain from receiving the Eucharist when he is conscious of having committed a mortal sin (s) without having received absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation. As long as a Catholic is in a state of grace, he is worthy to receive the sacrament. And the operative word there is grace–it’s only God’s grace that makes us worthy to receive Himself. Why *wouldn’t *a Catholic want to receive Christ every Sunday, or every day for that matter? It’s a privilege, a blessing! The Protestant churches I belonged to stressed reading the Bible and praying every day in order to grow in grace and avoid sin. The same with the Eucharist. It is Jesus *Himself *we receive, so not receiving Him definitely makes it harder for us to live obedient lives and avoid sin, just like living without an active prayer life makes us weaker too. We *depend *upon Christ for the power to be good, and when we don’t avail ourselves of that power, we’re headed for trouble.
I understand now that the Catholic teaching is that the bread and wine are transformed, but what about the heart of the partaking soul? Absolutely! Here is an excerpt from St. Faustina Kowalska’s diary, *Divine Mercy in My Soul, “*All the good that is in me is due to Holy Communion. . .Herein lies the the whole secret of my sanctity. . .one thing alone sustains me and that is Holy Communion. From it I draw all my strength; in it is all my comfort. . .Jesus concealed in the Host is everything to me. . .I would not know how to give glory to God if I did not have the Eucharist in my heart. . .” But the nature and degree of that transformation is going to be very individual.
 
40.png
Huguenot:
Then it means that you agree with me that the Eucharist is a symbol ???
or I don’t understand …
I went to a midnight mass with some members of my family and a Catholic friend, after consecrating the host and the wine, at a moment the priest said something like “the sacrifice we are offering You” (talking to God ), what does it mean then if it is not considered as a renewal of Christ’s sacrifice ? ( One of the atheist members of my family even startled when she heard that … )
On the French forums I am talking on, the Catholics INSIST on this renewal all the time …
No, I do not believe it is a symbol. I believe the Risen Lord comes to me in the Eucharist, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Perhaps some semantics others use make it unclear. I understand better now why theologians have to use precise language.

I believe that when Mass is offered it is the exact same sacrifice of Jesus for us…we are brought back to His “once for all” sacrifice. Awesome to me that it brings that time to me here…in this century!
 
40.png
St.Eric:
This is true. To build on this: Christ died ONCE and for ALL. This perfect and complete sacrifice of the New Covenant happened one time and is present in time and space on this earth until Christ comes again in Glory. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the participation in this one sacrifice of Christ that is present for All until the second coming. Not that we can add to the sacrifice in any way, for it was done but one time and was perfect, but that that sacrifice is re-presented to us until the final judgement so that we may actively participate in it.
Very well put! Thank you.
 
40.png
Dorothy:
No, I do not believe it is a symbol. I believe the Risen Lord comes to me in the Eucharist, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Perhaps some semantics others use make it unclear. I understand better now why theologians have to use precise language.

I believe that when Mass is offered it is the exact same sacrifice of Jesus for us…we are brought back to His “once for all” sacrifice. Awesome to me that it brings that time to me here…in this century!
But if His sacrifice was “once for all”, it means that the Eucharist brings back His sacrifice to our minds now, it doesn’t renew it, so it’s symbolical … I don’ t see any difference …
Maybe it’s too difficult for me also because of the language, both theological language and the fact that my native language is French.
 
40.png
Huguenot:
But if His sacrifice was “once for all”, it means that the Eucharist brings back His sacrifice to our minds now, it doesn’t renew it, so it’s symbolical … I don’ t see any difference …
Maybe it’s too difficult for me also because of the language, both theological language and the fact that my native language is French.
For me the Mass is the One Sacrifice, the memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection. At the Mass I receive into my soul His holy and glorious presence.

From the Catechism, #1344: “Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus ‘until he comes,’ the pilgrim People of God advances, ‘following the narrow way of the cross’, toward the heavenly banquet, when all the elect will be seated at the table of the kingdom.”

Peace,

Dorothy
 
40.png
Huguenot:
But if His sacrifice was “once for all”, it means that the Eucharist brings back His sacrifice to our minds now, it doesn’t renew it, so it’s symbolical … I don’ t see any difference …
Maybe it’s too difficult for me also because of the language, both theological language and the fact that my native language is French.
Not only your language but your training in the French obsession with “logique” are in your way here. Try to think of it this way: Christ is eternal. He is “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The Calvary piece is the time-and-space component. That can never be repeated and it was the temporal consummation of his offering to the Father.

When we obey his command to “do this,” the veil between time and eternity is torn, and we enter into the real meaning of “once.”

I do not believe the separation of the physical and “spiritual” as most Protestants seem to understand it could have developed as robustly as it did without the Renaissance, which focused on the raw humanity of mankind, and the Enlightenment, which finished the job.

Aaach. Does it not shatter you to think that the French Revolution tried to give us the 10-day week and erected an “altar to reason” in the middle of Notre Dame? Not casting blame on the French, here, because the entire Western world has never quite recovered from the fact-value split begun by that kind of thinking.
 
40.png
Dorothy:
For me the Mass is the One Sacrifice, the memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection. At the Mass I receive into my soul His holy and glorious presence.

From the Catechism, #1344: “Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus ‘until he comes,’ the pilgrim People of God advances, ‘following the narrow way of the cross’, toward the heavenly banquet, when all the elect will be seated at the table of the kingdom.”

Peace,

Dorothy
But if you use the exact word some Protestants use “it’s a memorial”, I totally agree with that !!! how can it be something else than a symbol ?
 
40.png
mercygate:
Not only your language but your training in the French obsession with “logique” are in your way here. Try to think of it this way: Christ is eternal. He is “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The Calvary piece is the time-and-space component. That can never be repeated and it was the temporal consummation of his offering to the Father.

When we obey his command to “do this,” the veil between time and eternity is torn, and we enter into the real meaning of “once.”

I do not believe the separation of the physical and “spiritual” as most Protestants seem to understand it could have developed as robustly as it did without the Renaissance, which focused on the raw humanity of mankind, and the Enlightenment, which finished the job.

Aaach. Does it not shatter you to think that the French Revolution tried to give us the 10-day week and erected an “altar to reason” in the middle of Notre Dame? Not casting blame on the French, here, because the entire Western world has never quite recovered from the fact-value split begun by that kind of thinking.
I agree with you that the sacrifice can never be repeated, but for me this fact contradicts the idea of real presence …
 
40.png
Pjs2ejs:
Did Jesus take the cup of wine or the small plastic sippies of grape juice? Another protestant contradiction.

Alcoholics have exception, I guess, but no one is required to take the blood. But I doubt that is the reason for the Protestant “tradition”. I think they so reject the body and blood of Christ that they are removing themselves further and further away from the True Presence.
In my former life, I was a protestant… Methodist and their “Discipline” suggests the avoidance of wine (anywhere in their church) because of the tendency to fall to temptation. I smoked cigarettes for twenty years and if I had a nickel for every time I tried to quit on my own:banghead: , I could buy a tobacco farm. But, when I asked God to help me…just like that, I quit:yup: . So…I don’t believe the argument for the “sake of” the alcoholic is valid. I believe God is in the healing business…period. He didn’t tell me to cut down on smoking or try a low tar cigarette…He healed me of the addiction, and that was seven years ago. (Thank you again Father!)

The Eucharist is the primary reason I have come home to the Catholic faith…I wanted the real thing!!
:amen:
Renee
 
Or does a Catholic say, I must be good and not sin THEN I am worthy to go accept the sacrament? And unless I accept it each Sunday, I will fall back into my sinful nature?
Posted by Veritas41 A Catholic is to abstain from receiving the Eucharist when he is conscious of having committed a mortal sin (s) without having received absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation. As long as a Catholic is in a state of grace, he is worthy to receive the sacrament. And the operative word there is grace–it’s only God’s grace that makes us worthy to receive Himself. Why wouldn’t a Catholic want to receive Christ every Sunday, or every day for that matter? It’s a privilege, a blessing!
The Protestant churches I belonged to stressed reading the Bible and praying every day in order to grow in grace and avoid sin. The same with the Eucharist. It is Jesus Himself we receive, so not receiving Him definitely makes it harder for us to live obedient lives and avoid sin, just like living without an active prayer life makes us weaker too. We depend upon Christ for the power to be good, and when we don’t avail ourselves of that power, we’re headed for trouble.
Okay, so here’s a question that may throw us all “off track”…except that, in your answer, you’ll likely explain the Eucharist more definitively…

But since, as you’ve stated above, the Catholic process of being in communion with Christ is much like that of the Protestant in that it is a “receiving Him” … believing we have an “indwelling presence” (through the Eucharist to a Catholic and through prayer, submission (even to give up the old self and be “born again” into a new self) and faith for the Protestant) —and these ideas are supported in Scripture, then my question is:

Would a Catholic say that the Protestant who receives Christ’s indwelling presence (in the way explained above) is accepted as a Son of God?

(See 1 John for definition of “Sons of God” … “Born of God”)

I know some of you have said the Protestant would not have the “fullness of Christ”…so explain then, what aspect of Christ are they missing out on according to Catholic doctrine–and if you are able–please support the doctrine with Scripture – as the Protestant sees Scripture as the “final authority”?

(Maybe that right there is the reason we cannot agree, and why this discussion is going in circles: the Catholic’s final authority is NOT Scripture.)

Thanks for your thoughts.
D.
 
[/quote]

Hi Mickey,
I’m sorry … I thought that’s what I have been told on here. That the final authority is the Church? Correct me, if that’s not accurate. I don’t mean to state any untruth.
Thanks.
D.
 
40.png
Huguenot:
But if you use the exact word some Protestants use “it’s a memorial”, I totally agree with that !!! how can it be something else than a symbol ?
The meaning of the memorial is that it is a LIVING here and now memorial…not just a remembrance of something that happened in time 2000 years ago. Jesus is with us, comes to us, and feeds us with Himself.

Obviously this is something that cannot be explained in words that would cause others to change their mind.
 
40.png
Doreen:
I’m sorry … I thought that’s what I have been told on here. That the final authority is the Church? Correct me, if that’s not accurate. I don’t mean to state any untruth.
Thanks.
D.
Maybe this can explain it clearer. Catholics believe in a three-legged stool: 1. Scripture 2. Sacred Tradition 2. Magisterium (God-given authority of the Church).

It is the teaching Church (Magisterium) that interprets Sacred Scripture.

We don’t believe “Sola Scriptura” (Bible alone) can work by itself.
Look at all the varying interpretations all claiming they are Holy Spirit inspired.

I believe that Jesus took care of that by giving authority to the Church.

Peace,

Dorothy
 
40.png
Huguenot:
I agree with you that the sacrifice can never be repeated, but for me this fact contradicts the idea of real presence …
Ahh. But it is not a contradiction at all. In the Eucharist, Jesus breaches the veil between time and eternity . . .

Be assured, acceptance and appreciation of this mystery does not come in a day; it comes by faith and even the desire to believe it may take years for someone not familiar with it. “Faith that comes by hearing pierces through the veil . . .”

Lord, increase our faith.
 
40.png
Dorothy:
Maybe this can explain it clearer. Catholics believe in a three-legged stool: 1. Scripture 2. Sacred Tradition 2. Magisterium (God-given authority of the Church).

It is the teaching Church (Magisterium) that interprets Sacred Scripture.

We don’t believe “Sola Scriptura” (Bible alone) can work by itself.
Look at all the varying interpretations all claiming they are Holy Spirit inspired.

I believe that Jesus took care of that by giving authority to the Church.

Peace,

Dorothy
Thanks, Dorothy. You’ve confirmed another Catholic friend’s interpretation, and helped me to understand it.

So…is the question still valid? And if so, how would you respond? (Let me clarify that I am saying that the Protestant is trusting his/her sincere submission to Christ and the promised transforming work of Christ as the route to the indwelling presence. And he/she maintains their state of grace by “feeding” on the Word of God through prayer and the promised work of the Holy Spirit…and daily repentance as they come before the Lord in worship, prayer and meditation on the Word.)

In essence, I am describing myself. How would you say I am missing out on the fullness of Christ? Do you believe I would not “make it to heaven?”

You, I know, will question whether the Holy Spirit CAN and DOES come to annoint a common follower like myself…so that I understand to be a divisive point…and I’ve explored this in depth on another thread…but help me to fully comprehend how I am “missing out.”

Thanks. (I have further questions, but I’ll leave you with this one, for now.)
D.
 
40.png
Doreen:
Thanks, Dorothy. You’ve confirmed another Catholic friend’s interpretation, and helped me to understand it.

So…is the question still valid? And if so, how would you respond? (Let me clarify that I am saying that the Protestant is trusting his/her sincere submission to Christ and the promised transforming work of Christ as the route to the indwelling presence. And he/she maintains their state of grace by “feeding” on the Word of God through prayer and the promised work of the Holy Spirit…and daily repentance as they come before the Lord in worship, prayer and meditation on the Word.)

In essence, I am describing myself. How would you say I am missing out on the fullness of Christ? Do you believe I would not “make it to heaven?”

You, I know, will question whether the Holy Spirit CAN and DOES come to annoint a common follower like myself…so that I understand to be a divisive point…and I’ve explored this in depth on another thread…but help me to fully comprehend how I am “missing out.”

Thanks. (I have further questions, but I’ll leave you with this one, for now.)
D.
Hi Doreen,

I have no right to say whether or not a person will make it to heaven. And, I have stated in another message that I believe that sincere believers who walk with the Lord will receive the blessings they need on their journey.

However, when I am questioned, as a Catholic I will state what the Church teaches, or I believe I would be denying Christ and all the truths He taught us.

And, He prayed “that all may be one”.

Peace,

Dorothy
 
40.png
Doreen:
Thanks, Dorothy. You’ve confirmed another Catholic friend’s interpretation, and helped me to understand it.

So…is the question still valid? And if so, how would you respond? (Let me clarify that I am saying that the Protestant is trusting his/her sincere submission to Christ and the promised transforming work of Christ as the route to the indwelling presence. And he/she maintains their state of grace by “feeding” on the Word of God through prayer and the promised work of the Holy Spirit…and daily repentance as they come before the Lord in worship, prayer and meditation on the Word.)

In essence, I am describing myself. How would you say I am missing out on the fullness of Christ? Do you believe I would not “make it to heaven?”

You, I know, will question whether the Holy Spirit CAN and DOES come to annoint a common follower like myself…so that I understand to be a divisive point…and I’ve explored this in depth on another thread…but help me to fully comprehend how I am “missing out.”

Thanks. (I have further questions, but I’ll leave you with this one, for now.)
D.
The Church officially, and Catholics privately, acknowledge that the Holy Spirit “blows where it listeth” and does NOT stay in the house. If the Holy Spirit communicated only with “insiders” we wouldn’t have St. Paul! The Church teaches that those who seek God sincerely are candidates for Heaven. But on the tough side, she (the Church) states that once a person has recognized the centrality and authenticity of the Catholic Church and willfully rejects her, he is placing his soul in mortal danger because we know that the Church is Christ’s Church and to reject her is to reject Jesus: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects yourejects me, and he whorejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16)

How are you missing out? The only way for you to know that is to experience it for yourself. When Christ gives you the supernatural hunger to receive his Body and Blood – as your mother used to tell you about being in love – You WILL know! All I can say is that nothing you describe in your experience of your faith is NOT part of Catholic life. The Eucharist consolidates it, matures it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top