Protestant Eucharistic Miracles

[Mannyfit75]

What you quoted from scripture proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what we believe as Anglicans and what most Catholics I know believe and that is that the Eucharist is both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. This is plain to see and you pointed it out in several scriptures and for that, my hat is off to you. The case has been made to some Evangelicals and Jehovahs Witnesses and such that the Eucharist is important and in fact the center of our worship and this is why we partake in it every Sunday. Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans and also Orthodox folls as well all agree. However, nothing states that only a Roman catholic priest has the ability to change the physical characteristics of bread and wine and for that matter nowhere did it say that a physical change ever takes place. Sorry. I never bought it when I was Roman Catholic and I certainly don’t buy it now. Why??? It is simply not scriptural.

The Catholic Church recognized the validity of Eastern Orthodox Sacraments.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine are actually transformed objectively (“really”) into the body and blood of Christ, and that, therefore, it is theologically incorrect to refer to them, after consecration, just as bread and wine or even just as holy bread and wine. The consecrated elements retain the forms of bread and wine, but are in reality the actual body and blood of Christ.

The words of the Ethiopic liturgy are representative of the faith of Oriental Orthodoxy: “I believe, I believe, I believe and profess to the last breath that this is the body and the blood of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, which he took from our Lady, the holy and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.”

The Eastern Orthodox Church Synod of Jerusalem declared: “We believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, … but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin Mary, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.”

Similarly the Western Roman Catholic Church greets what it sees as really in the Eucharist with the words of a Latin hymn of which a literal translation is: “Hail, true body, born of Mary Virgin, and which truly suffered and was immolated on the cross for mankind!”

None of these Churches see what is really in the Eucharist as a corpse and mere blood, but as the whole Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity; nor do they see the persisting outward appearances of bread and wine as a mere illusion. This actual transformation, change or conversion of the reality, while the appearances remain unaltered – not the process or manner by which the transformation comes about, since all agree that this occurs “in a way surpassing understanding” – has been called transubstantiation or, in Greek, μετουσίωσις (metousiosis).

In the view of these Churches, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is of an order different from the presence of Christ in the other sacraments: in the other sacraments he is present by his power rather than by the reality of his body and blood, the basis of the expression “Real Presence”. Accordingly, they consider that those who hold that, in objective reality, the elements of the Eucharist remain unchanged believe not in the Real Presence of Christ in this particular sacrament, but in a presence that is merely personal to the communicant, whatever name (pneumatic, anamnetical, etc.) is used to describe it.

 

[eliasaph99]

What you quoted from scripture proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what we believe as Anglicans and what most Catholics I know believe and that is that the Eucharist is both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. This is plain to see and you pointed it out in several scriptures and for that, my hat is off to you. The case has been made to some Evangelicals and Jehovahs Witnesses and such that the Eucharist is important and in fact the center of our worship and this is why we partake in it every Sunday. Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans and also Orthodox folls as well all agree. However, nothing states that only a Roman catholic priest has the ability to change the physical characteristics of bread and wine and for that matter nowhere did it say that a physical change ever takes place. Sorry. I never bought it when I was Roman Catholic and I certainly don’t buy it now. Why??? It is simply not scriptural.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that only a Roman Catholic priest can transubtantiate the Eucharist.

There are several Churches within the Catholic Church, only one of them is the Roman Church, more correctly called the Latin Church. But all the priests in the Catholic Church can consecrate the Eucharist.

There is valid Apostolic Succession outside of the Catholic Church as well. These Churches also consecrate the Eucharist.

It is not belonging to the Catholic Priesthood which communicates the privilege of being able to consecrate the Eucharist, it is the administration of that particular sacrament of Holy Orders which gives the Priesthood by a bishop who is validly descended from the Apostles. This gift was first given by Christ to His Apostles at the Last Supper and has come to men through them. It is plain in the Gospels that He gave them special responsibilities.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that only a Roman Catholic priest can transubtantiate the Eucharist.

There are several Churches within the Catholic Church, only one of them is the Roman Church, more correctly called the Latin Church. But all the priests in the Catholic Church can consecrate the Eucharist.

There is valid Apostolic Succession outside of the Catholic Church as well. These Churches also consecrate the Eucharist.

It is not belonging to the Catholic Priesthood which communicates the privilege of being able to consecrate the Eucharist, it is the administration of that particular sacrament of Holy Orders which gives the Priesthood by a bishop who is validly descended from the Apostles. This gift was first given by Christ to His Apostles at the Last Supper and has come to men through them. It is plain in the Gospels that He gave them special responsibilities.

Yes, and I did mention the Orthodox Churches… has valid sacraments recognized by the Holy See.

 

[Mary3]

Have you considered the possibility that Mr. Traveller is not now, nor has ever been, a Catholic? His posts show a profound unfamiliarity with the faith (and scripture for that matter) for someone who claims to have been Catholic for 34 years.

I was just thinking the same thing. After reviewing all of Traveler’s posts, I’m inclined to believe he was not a Catholic. If he was, he was surely the victim of the poorest possible catechesis!

 

[Joshua99]

You are all convinced that only yourselves possess the eucharist. I hear it over and over again and I too was onc Catholic so I do understand the concept. But, I can assure you that not only Roman Catholics possess the eucharist. I have witnessed the outpouring of the holy spirit from the eucharist on two occassions and neither one was in a Catholic church. I received the eucharist for the better part of 34 yars in a Roman Catholic church and experienced nothing.

That ‘Traveller’ would be your problem not ours!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

What you quoted from scripture proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what we believe as Anglicans and what most Catholics I know believe and that is that the Eucharist is both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. This is plain to see and you pointed it out in several scriptures and for that, my hat is off to you. The case has been made to some Evangelicals and Jehovahs Witnesses and such that the Eucharist is important and in fact the center of our worship and this is why we partake in it every Sunday. Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans and also Orthodox folls as well all agree. However, nothing states that only a Roman catholic priest has the ability to change the physical characteristics of bread and wine and for that matter nowhere did it say that a physical change ever takes place. Sorry. I never bought it when I was Roman Catholic and I certainly don’t buy it now. Why??? It is simply not scriptural.

Traveller,

What IS your problem?

Why do you spend your free time trolling the Catholic Answers forums being contentious and spiteful?

Are you here to discuss or preach? If preach, take some time to learn about the multiple Anglican points of view on this matter, before coming here as a self-appointed arbiter of the Anglican view - you would do well to learn some of the conflicting views of that community before telling us authoritatively “what they believe” Now, more than ever, no one can do that.

Nowhere is the word “Trinity” mentioned in scripture either.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

What you quoted from scripture proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what we believe as Anglicans and what most Catholics I know believe and that is that the Eucharist is both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. This is plain to see and you pointed it out in several scriptures and for that, my hat is off to you. The case has been made to some Evangelicals and Jehovahs Witnesses and such that the Eucharist is important and in fact the center of our worship and this is why we partake in it every Sunday. Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans and also Orthodox folls as well all agree. However, nothing states that only a Roman catholic priest has the ability to change the physical characteristics of bread and wine and for that matter nowhere did it say that a physical change ever takes place. Sorry. I never bought it when I was Roman Catholic and I certainly don’t buy it now. Why??? It is simply not scriptural.

Traveller,

Your opinion does not trump scripture. I asked you to come back with some evidence to support you opinion, what do I get…more opinion, more rationalizations, more unsupported sweeping statements; having a little trouble finding supporting scripture are we???

Now it’s your turn…show me one single example of scripture that supports your belief in consubstantiation, just one. Show me the writings of just one Church Father supporting consubstantiation. Show me just one verse where Christ supported consubstantiation…just one! Where did he say something like, “This bread is also my body” or “This cup contains both wine and my blood”. Clearly, for you to be so certain you should be able to quote 'chapter and verse".

It wasn’t until the middle of the ninth century when Berengarius of Tours denied transubstantiation that it became an issue. Berengarius held that the consecrated Bread is the body of Christ but the bread basically remained unchanged and assumed somthing (Christ’s presence) that it was not. This error was rejected at multiple Church councils over the next 1/2 century. He appealed to Rome and was invited by Pope Alexander II to renounce this error…he refused. Luther picked up on this in the Reformation with his Doctrine of Consubstantiation.

Here’s the point, if you search you won’t find a varience in opinion before the 10th century. So scriputure is unequivocal in its language e.g. "This IS my body, John 6, the writings of the very people who walked with Christ, knew Christ and the people the apostles knew…none of them ever, ever, ever made a single statement in support of consubstantiation, not one! This is why protestants, like yourself, are hard put to refute transubstantiation because you can only do so by saying that Christ was speaking figuratively…he didn’t mean it…

Roman Catholic Church is the only church that can trace it’s roots to Christ’s table at the last supper. At the Last Supper Christ instituted the Eucharist and founded the priesthood. Catholic apostolic succession can be traced from the Last Suppoer to today. The simple truth…no priest…no mass…no Eucharist.

The fact is your church is one of over 30,000 protestant denominations operating today in the United States and they all claim to be right! Why are there 30,000? Because no two of them can agree on the reading of scripture. None of these denominations can trace their Church back any further than the Reformation. If you think you can…I’d like to see the geneaology.

Last thing…you left the fulness of the Catholic Church to become a member of one of the 30,000 plus protestant sects, think about it.

Iowa Mike

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Let’s get back on track to the topic of this thread: Protestant Eucharistic Miracles.

The Eucharist (the Last Supper and subsequent Crucifixion) was obviously a VERY important part of Christ’s redemptive plan for us. We’ve discussed in depth what Catholics believe that part to be in the Catholic Faith, and many miracles can be attributed to the Catholic Eucharist.

Are there any miracles attributed to the non-Catholic equivalent of the Last Supper/Crucifixion?

 

[chevalier]

Thank you so much for that. You made absolutely no sense other than to shed light on the fact that you have a dislike for Jews (as Mel Gibson obviously does). And, a Catholic didn’t say what you called ignorant trash, I said it. And once again, it isn’t ignorant it is the truth.

Not so sure of that. Mel Gibson doesn’t have any particular dislike of Jews just because he represented the passion any more than he would be anti-Roman if Jesus had come to Rome instead.

 

[Yerusalyim]

By definition, only Catholics and Orthodox could experience Eucharistic Miracles because only these two parts of Christ’s Body have the Real Presence.

Having said that, is it possible that God will use even the simple communion service of our protestant brothers to touch them in a special way? Sure, it’s possible…God will use and honor these services if he chooses, even though they aren’t in full communion with Rome, and even if they don’t beleive the Real Presence…God is present at their Communion table as well (though not as completely as at the Eucharist) because “where two are three are gathered” in his name, he is there in their midsts. So, is it possible? Yes, but I’m unaware of any cases.

 

[Traveller1534]

Traveller,

Your opinion does not trump scripture. I asked you to come back with some evidence to support you opinion, what do I get…more opinion, more rationalizations, more unsupported sweeping statements; having a little trouble finding supporting scripture are we???

Now it’s your turn…show me one single example of scripture that supports your belief in consubstantiation, just one. Show me the writings of just one Church Father supporting consubstantiation. Show me just one verse where Christ supported consubstantiation…just one! Where did he say something like, “This bread is also my body” or “This cup contains both wine and my blood”. Clearly, for you to be so certain you should be able to quote 'chapter and verse".

It wasn’t until the middle of the ninth century when Berengarius of Tours denied transubstantiation that it became an issue. Berengarius held that the consecrated Bread is the body of Christ but the bread basically remained unchanged and assumed somthing (Christ’s presence) that it was not. This error was rejected at multiple Church councils over the next 1/2 century. He appealed to Rome and was invited by Pope Alexander II to renounce this error…he refused. Luther picked up on this in the Reformation with his Doctrine of Consubstantiation.

Here’s the point, if you search you won’t find a varience in opinion before the 10th century. So scriputure is unequivocal in its language e.g. "This IS my body, John 6, the writings of the very people who walked with Christ, knew Christ and the people the apostles knew…none of them ever, ever, ever made a single statement in support of consubstantiation, not one! This is why protestants, like yourself, are hard put to refute transubstantiation because you can only do so by saying that Christ was speaking figuratively…he didn’t mean it…

Roman Catholic Church is the only church that can trace it’s roots to Christ’s table at the last supper. At the Last Supper Christ instituted the Eucharist and founded the priesthood. Catholic apostolic succession can be traced from the Last Suppoer to today. The simple truth…no priest…no mass…no Eucharist.

The fact is your church is one of over 30,000 protestant denominations operating today in the United States and they all claim to be right! Why are there 30,000? Because no two of them can agree on the reading of scripture. None of these denominations can trace their Church back any further than the Reformation. If you think you can…I’d like to see the geneaology.

Last thing…you left the fulness of the Catholic Church to become a member of one of the 30,000 plus protestant sects, think about it.

Iowa Mike

Sir, you are so consumed by your own willingness to be controlled that it is almost laughable. You read scripture but yet deny the very words that you are reading because those that control your thinking have already denied them as well and mandated their own interpretations. What you are doing is ultimately dangerous to your soul and to those that get caught up in this propaganda. The Roman Catholic church is NOT the early church that Jesus founded, the pope is NOT the vicar of Christ or Christ on earth, it doesn’t matter one bit whether Mary was born without original sin or not and Jesus died for our sins, ALL OF THEM and that was sufficient for our salvation! Get on track with real Christianity man.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Sir, you are so consumed by your own willingness to be controlled that it is almost laughable. You read scripture but yet deny the very words that you are reading because those that control your thinking have already denied them as well and mandated their own interpretations. What you are doing is ultimately dangerous to your soul and to those that get caught up in this propaganda. The Roman Catholic church is NOT the early church that Jesus founded, the pope is NOT the vicar of Christ or Christ on earth, it doesn’t matter one bit whether Mary was born without original sin or not and Jesus died for our sins, ALL OF THEM and that was sufficient for our salvation! Get on track with real Christianity man.

Get on track with real charity man.

We agree with the notion that “Jesus died for our sins, ALL OF THEM and that was sufficient for our salvation!” What we don’t agree with is the notion of the altar call or some private one time thing, as you seem to be implying, will cover it. It is not scriptural, it is not traditional.

Does your fundamentalist Protestant propositn that “Jesus died for our sins, ALL OF THEM and that was sufficient for our salvation!” mean you are going through the motions when you attend your ecclesial communities “high mass”?