Protestant Communion?

[GKC]

Well, there seems to be two questions here that are being confused. IGotQuestions asks a objective question – “Is Christ Spiritually Present in Protestant Communion?” – and gets a subjective answer – “Yes, we believe in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.”

The question, of course, is not what people believe, but if what they believe (or perhaps, what they don’t believe*) is actually a reality. To answer the question in the OP, we need to first ask this questions “What is meant by Protestant”?

The reason for this is that the word ‘Protestant,’ though it was useful when first introduced, as it referred merely to those Christians who protested the Holy Roman Emperor’s enforcement of the Edict of Worms, restricting their religious freedom, it has now – especially among certain Roman Catholic apologists – become a meaningless catch all phrase that simply means ‘anyone who is Christian but which happens not to be Roman Catholic or Orthodox.’

Since this makes the question in the OP impossible to answer, I will stick to Lutheranism, and my own Church.

Traditionally, and by that I do not mean ‘in the olden days,’ a sacrament is deemed valid if it is performed by a valid valid minister (in the case of Eucharist, a properly ordained or consecrated priest or bishop), using valid matter (in the case of Eucharist, grape wine and wheat bread), with valid intent (facere quod facit ecclesia, ‘to do what the Church does’), using a valid form (a valid liturgy). Note that the intent is not that the priest or bishop must intend what the Church intends, or believe what the Church believes, just intend to do what the Church does. This is assumed valid by what he does (the valid form) and what he does it with (the valid matter).

To answer your question, then, Christ is present in any given ‘Protestant Communion’ if that is performed by a validly ordained or consecrated priest or bishop, using a valid liturgy and valid matter, with the intent to do what the Church does.

Is that to be found? I maintain that it is, but that has been discussed here several times already.

• What I mean by this is that personal beliefs – positive or negative – do not affect the objective character of a sacrament in any way, except, perhaps, the person’s receptivity of that sacrament. As Dom Gregory Dix put it, discussing the personal, and pretty radically Protestant, views of Cranmer and his people on the sacraments: “It is a commonplace of all theology, Roman or Anglican, that no public formulary can be or ought to be interpreted by the private sense attached to it by the compilers.” (Dom Gregory Dix, The Question of Anglican Orders (Dacre Press 1956): 30.)

Yep, as long as intent is, as you say, facere quod facit ecclesia. As say Anglicans, who (like me) are certainly familiar with Apostolicae Curae, and the intertwined issues of intent and form.

 

[Thorolfr]

Traditionally, and by that I do not mean ‘in the olden days,’ a sacrament is deemed valid if it is performed by a valid valid minister (in the case of Eucharist, a properly ordained or consecrated priest or bishop), using valid matter (in the case of Eucharist, grape wine and wheat bread), with valid intent (facere quod facit ecclesia, ‘to do what the Church does’), using a valid form (a valid liturgy). Note that the intent is not that the priest or bishop must intend what the Church intends, or believe what the Church believes, just intend to do what the Church does. This is assumed valid by what he does (the valid form) and what he does it with (the valid matter).

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Jesus would have cared about all this. He doesn’t say, “This is my body, but only if done by a valid minister with apostolic succession and with valid intent and using valid form.” Every time I read these kinds of conversations, it seems to be about why church X has valid this and valid that and therefore really has Jesus whereas church Y doesn’t have Jesus (even if they think they do) because they don’t have valid ministers and valid forms, etc. It’s an argument about who’s better than whom, who’s in and who’s out.

 

[Elizium23]

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Jesus would have cared about all this.

And yet, He founded a Church, one Church with the Keys to bind and loose, and that Church has determined the necessary bounds of the sacraments.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Jesus would have cared about all this. He doesn’t say, “This is my body, but only if done by a valid minister with apostolic succession and with valid intent and using valid form.” Every time I read these kinds of conversations, it seems to be about why church X has valid this and valid that and therefore really has Jesus whereas church Y doesn’t have Jesus (even if they think they do) because they don’t have valid ministers and valid forms, etc. It’s an argument about who’s better than whom, who’s in and who’s out.

Be careful not to try to read God’s mind and assume what He would, or would not ‘care about’, or what you think people are ‘arguing about’ and why.

You’re totally misunderstanding Christianity, and especially Catholic Christianity, if you think that we care about beliefs because we want to establish a ladder of ’ who’s better than whom’, or that we want to keep some in and others out. Frankly, that idea is extremely offensive.

 

[eazyduzit]

Be careful not to try to read God’s mind and assume what He would, or would not ‘care about’, or what you think people are ‘arguing about’ and why.

You’re totally misunderstanding Christianity, and especially Catholic Christianity, if you think that we care about beliefs because we want to establish a ladder of ’ who’s better than whom’, or that we want to keep some in and others out. Frankly, that idea is extremely offensive.

Really? I don’t think Thorolfr “totally misunderstands Christianity” It is essentially about the love and grace of God freely given to those who trust in Christ according to the Gospel. Now back to communion. Jesus did not say,“do this to make Me really Present (because I’m not really Present”)Rather, He said, “Do this to Remember Me” . The Bible says, “And you shall seek me and you shall find me when you seek me with all your heart” Jer29:13.Note that Adam and Eve lived in God’s. Presence. In v.8 of ch3 it says that they" hid themselves from the Presence of the Lord" .This Presence is a very holy place and one must be willing to put in much prayer,meditation, fasting, and worship to obtain it. One who did was known as Brother Lawrence, a 17th c. French monk. A book of his sayings was published under the title" The Practice of the Presence of God" . This man had learned to live in God’s Presence. and because of this, he became highly sought after for God’s wisdom and prophetic words. You see, if you ever achieve God’s Presence you will surely know it and others will sense it on you. When Moses returned from the Presence, his face shown so brightly it had to be shaded.
So yes i believe in the Presence of God, but it is a very precious thing that most are not willing to pay the price to have.

 

[CuriousMike]

Really? I don’t think Thorolfr “totally misunderstands Christianity” It is essentially about the love and grace of God freely given to those who trust in Christ according to the Gospel. Now back to communion. Jesus did not say,“do this to make Me really Present (because I’m not really Present”)Rather, He said, “Do this to Remember Me” . The Bible says, “And you shall seek me and you shall find me when you seek me with all your heart” Jer29:13.Note that Adam and Eve lived in God’s. Presence. In v.8 of ch3 it says that they" hid themselves from the Presence of the Lord" .This Presence is a very holy place and one must be willing to put in much prayer,meditation, fasting, and worship to obtain it. One who did was known as Brother Lawrence, a 17th c. French monk. A book of his sayings was published under the title" The Practice of the Presence of God" . This man had learned to live in God’s Presence. and because of this, he became highly sought after for God’s wisdom and prophetic words. You see, if you ever achieve God’s Presence you will surely know it and others will sense it on you. When Moses returned from the Presence, his face shown so brightly it had to be shaded.
So yes i believe in the Presence of God, but it is a very precious thing that most are not willing to pay the price to have.

In that same line as you recovered “Do this to remember Me,” you will also find, “This is my Body… This is my Blood({And Possibly, because I didn’t look up this verse} The cup of the new and everlasting Covenant.”

Then we have the whole of John 6, where Jesus tells us He is the Bread of Life, and that we MUST eat His Flesh, and drink His Blood, or we shall not have life within us.
The original meaning of the words he used, before translation was “gnawing,” according to Father Robert Baron.

While God’s Grace is available to us freely, if we should desire it, it is not as simple as making a simple profession of your faith. Your whole life MUST change, and one MUST perform works to demonstrate your faith to God - If you really believe in Him, then you will do what He asks of you, and what is commanded in the Bible.
(As said in the Bible, our works will be tested by fire).

 

[7_Sorrows]

Really? I don’t think Thorolfr “totally misunderstands Christianity” It is essentially about the love and grace of God freely given to those who trust in Christ according to the Gospel. Now back to communion. Jesus did not say,“do this to make Me really Present (because I’m not really Present”)Rather, He said, “Do this to Remember Me” . The Bible says, “And you shall seek me and you shall find me when you seek me with all your heart” Jer29:13.Note that Adam and Eve lived in God’s. Presence. In v.8 of ch3 it says that they" hid themselves from the Presence of the Lord" .This Presence is a very holy place and one must be willing to put in much prayer,meditation, fasting, and worship to obtain it. One who did was known as Brother Lawrence, a 17th c. French monk. A book of his sayings was published under the title" The Practice of the Presence of God" . This man had learned to live in God’s Presence. and because of this, he became highly sought after for God’s wisdom and prophetic words. You see, if you ever achieve God’s Presence you will surely know it and others will sense it on you. When Moses returned from the Presence, his face shown so brightly it had to be shaded.
So yes i believe in the Presence of God, but it is a very precious thing that most are not willing to pay the price to have.

I do believe having the Spiritual Presence of God is very important for all to find.

 

[KjetilK]

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Jesus would have cared about all this. He doesn’t say, “This is my body, but only if done by a valid minister with apostolic succession and with valid intent and using valid form.”

Christ said “do this in remembrance of me” which is not a reference to the meal as such, but to do the actions Christ did in preparation of the meal.

When he said that, he said it to the apostles But did he adress them as apostles, representing the apostolate and their successors, or did he did he adress them as Christians in general?

You cannot deduce either one out of the text itself. But the former interpretation takes presedence throughout history.

 

[KjetilK]

Rather, He said, “Do this to Remember Me” .

No, he did not. He said ‘do this in remembrance/memory of me.’ There is significant a difference. We already ‘remember’ him.

 

[TC3033]

Be careful not to try to read God’s mind and assume what He would, or would not ‘care about’, or what you think people are ‘arguing about’ and why.

You’re totally misunderstanding Christianity, and especially Catholic Christianity, if you think that we care about beliefs because we want to establish a ladder of ’ who’s better than whom’, or that** we want to keep some in and others out. ** Frankly, that idea is extremely offensive.

That may need some elaboration. Pretty much the vibe I get (maybe it’s just me) at Mass and other church outings with the fam since I’m not Catholic. Maybe it’s just being singled out.

Every time I read these kinds of conversations, it seems to be about why church X has valid this and valid that and therefore really has Jesus whereas church Y doesn’t have Jesus (even if they think they do) because they don’t have valid ministers and valid forms, etc. It’s an argument about who’s better than whom, who’s in and who’s out.

Yep…

 

[Elizium23]

Protestant ecclesial communities are not Churches, because they lack the seven sacraments and apostolic succession.

 

[Thorolfr]

Protestant ecclesial communities are not Churches, because they lack the seven sacraments and apostolic succession.

What about the Catholic ecclesial community (or is it a denomination)? Is it a church?

 

[Della]

What about the Catholic ecclesial community (or is it a denomination)? Is it a church?

It simply is the Church. This is not to say that God doesn’t work outside the Church he established. We know that he does and we rejoice that he does because all that matters to the Church is the salvation of souls, not who is in perfect communion with her. Still, the Church is simply what it is. Founded by Christ on the Apostles and their successors it subsists in the Catholic Church and all affliated with her through rite and other attachments, and the Orthodox Churches. All others are splinter bodies that, although well-intentioned and definitely Christian are not in full union with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded.

 

[Thorolfr]

LOL…I love these kinds of discussions here in CAF where I get told all the time that Jesus is not present “in any way whatsoever” during communion in my Lutheran church and that my church is not even a church, it’s only an “ecclesial community”…

I always feel so warm and fuzzy when I come here to CAF and everyone is always so kind and charitable in their comments…

 

[Della]

LOL…I love these kinds of discussions here in CAF where I get told all the time that Jesus is not present “in any way whatsoever” during communion in my Lutheran church and that my church is not even a church, it’s only an “ecclesial community”…

Well, the first statement is wrong, but the second one is correct. It’s not a judgment of anyone in such ecclesial communities, rather it is a simple definition determining which bodies are in full communion with the Church and which are not.

 

[Thorolfr]

Well, the first statement is wrong, but the second one is correct. It’s not a judgment of anyone in such ecclesial communities, rather it is a simple definition determining which bodies are in full communion with the Church and which are not.

If it’s only a matter of definition, I prefer to define it so that my religious faith community is the Church and the Catholic community is only an “ecclesial community”

 

[GKC]

Well, the first statement is wrong, but the second one is correct. It’s not a judgment of anyone in such ecclesial communities, rather it is a simple definition determining which bodies are in full communion with the Church and which are not.

Which the sort of thing any Church should certainly, understandably, be allowed to define for itself, and teach its adherents. No problem.

 

[GKC]

I’ll buy it.

 

[Thorolfr]

Which the sort of thing any Church should certainly, understandably, be allowed to define for itself, and teach its adherents. No problem.

Good point. So every Christian faith community can now define itself as a church and everyone else as an “ecclesial community”. I’m sure that if I do this in my discussion here, no one who is not an ELCA Lutheran will be bothered.

 

[GKC]

Good point. So every Christian faith community can now define itself as a church and everyone else as an “ecclesial community”. I’m sure that if I do this, no one who is not an ELCA Lutheran will be bothered.

I won’t. Can’t answer for the world.