Protestant interpretation of the real presence

[GKC]

The Council of Trent did not formulate a new doctrine on the Eucharist; it simply gave a precise authentic declaration of that faith which had always been in the Catholic Church.

The nature of the Real Presence did get a little ping-pong action, between Radbertus and Ratramnus, back around the the 9th century, an issue that raised its head occasionally, through Berengarius’ day.

Certainly, Trent, Session XIII laid it out well, esp. canon I, as finally defined.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[ufamtobie]

Nicodemus didn’t understand Jesus method of teaching either:

Fiberzilla,

(John 3: 4) I tell You Most Solemnly, unless a man is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Fiberzilla, Now I ask you what part of “I tell You Most Solemnly” Don’t You understand?

Fiberzilla, we must all be born of water and Spirit but you cannot see this happening, Just as you cannot see the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Ufamtobie

 

[FiberZilla]

Fiberzilla,

(John 3: 4) I tell You Most Solemnly, unless a man is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Fiberzilla, Now I ask you what part of “I tell You Most Solemnly” Don’t You understand?

Fiberzilla, we must all be born of water and Spirit but you cannot see this happening, Just as you cannot see the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Ufamtobie

My point was that Nicodemus thought that Jesus was talking about literal birth. Obviously he was not. He was not talking about literal flesh either. In John 6 Jesus was rebuking unbelievers among the crowd for seeking a free breakfast after watching Him feed five-thousand the night before. Go read it!

“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” (John 3:4)

Compare:

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52)

 

[wisdomseeker]

My point was that Nicodemus thought that Jesus was talking about literal birth. Obviously he was not. He was not talking about literal flesh either. In John 6 Jesus was rebuking unbelievers among the crowd for seeking a free breakfast after watching Him feed five-thousand the night before. Go read it!

“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” (John 3:4)

Compare:

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52)

how can one resort to bible alone to settle such an issue? both could be arguing on this for ages and never come to an agreement. Catholics have understanding of this because it has been tought for 2000 yrs that is what Jesus said.
protestants have been denying this for 450 yrs. now, can one pick up the Bible 2000 yrs later and know precisely what Jesus meant? the fact is you cant. you must go to other sources to know what Jesus really meant.

Catholics have understanding of Covenants maded between God and the Jews and what it entails because the Church found by Christ received the understanding from Christ Himself. protestants on the other have no such understanding therefore they must resort to Scriptures alone to prove their assumptions. can Scriptures alone give anyone the understanding of the Word of God? since Christ found a teaching Church to go and preach to all men. to resort to Scriptures alone and reject the Church is to be in disobedience to Christ. Christ cannot in any way go against His own Word and give understanding to those who reject the authority of His Church over Scriptures since He never gave such allusion to such a thing,

Peace.

 

[jericho777]

how can one resort to bible alone to settle such an issue? both could be arguing on this for ages and never come to an agreement. Catholics have understanding of this because it has been tought for 2000 yrs that is what Jesus said.
protestants have been denying this for 450 yrs. now, can one pick up the Bible 2000 yrs later and know precisely what Jesus meant? the fact is you cant. you must go to other sources to know what Jesus really meant.

Catholics have understanding of Covenants maded between God and the Jews and what it entails because the Church found by Christ received the understanding from Christ Himself. protestants on the other have no such understanding therefore they must resort to Scriptures alone to prove their assumptions. can Scriptures alone give anyone the understanding of the Word of God? since Christ found a teaching Church to go and preach to all men. to resort to Scriptures alone and reject the Church is to be in disobedience to Christ. Christ cannot in any way go against His own Word and give understanding to those who reject the authority of His Church over Scriptures since He never gave such allusion to such a thing,

Peace.

We both believe that the bible is the word of God. Therefore it has gravitas. God will never go against His written word. How come scripture does not have authority over the church but just the opposite? There are passages in scripture that are hard or contain mysteries. That does not give you license to declare authority over or change the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. You are constantly adding to the faith of Jesus. It is not the same faith as was in the first century.

God gave us His Holy Spirit and His Word to lead and guide all believers. The church should teach the word as delivered not keep adding man made rules as scripture. Things that were necessary for salvation in the first century now have additional requirements according to the church.

 

[RedBert]

The Book of Hebrews drives home the point the sacrifice of Christ was perfect and need not be repeated. Christ will NEVER have his blood poured out or his flesh broken again…
For me and many others, that is a strong argument against Transubstantiation.

** RE: John 6, In CONTEXT:**

Then he said, “And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (v. 51).

This sounded like cannibalism. His listeners balked. He pressed it even further:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink (John 6:53-55).

The “Jesus for King” campaign evaporated. The people walked away shaking their heads. The crazy man wants us to eat his flesh! They completely misunderstood what Jesus was saying.

**So what did he mean? Here are the clues: **

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v. 40)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him. Believe what?

Believe that his death—the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood—pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness.

Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” his blood.

This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.

When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief:

“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (vv. 63-64).

-desireingGod.org

and these two points:

No where in the Bible do we ever see a miracle performed where the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. Yet, after the priest performs his super natural act of transubstantiation, the wafer and wine look, taste, smell and feel the same. It has the appearance of a counterfeit miracle because no noticeable change has occurred. When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

It is stated that the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life.

If both are literal we have a dilemma.
What if a person “believes” but does not “eat or drink”? Or what if a person “eats and drinks” but does not “believe?”
This could occur any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize the interpretation of these two verses is to accept one as figurative(eating flesh) and one as literal. (believing)

 

[GKC]

The Eucharistic sacrifice is not a repeated sacrifice; Christ is not sacrificed again. It is the one sacrifice of Calvary, that is made present for us on the altar, in the Mass as time and eternity intersect. That sacrifice. Not another, or a repeated, or an additional, or subsequent one. That one.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

The Book of Hebrews drives home the point the sacrifice of Christ was perfect and need not be repeated. Christ will NEVER have his blood poured out or his flesh broken again…
For me and many others, that is a strong argument against Transubstantiation.

** RE: John 6, In CONTEXT:**

Then he said, “And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (v. 51).

This sounded like cannibalism. His listeners balked. He pressed it even further:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink (John 6:53-55).

The “Jesus for King” campaign evaporated. The people walked away shaking their heads. The crazy man wants us to eat his flesh! They completely misunderstood what Jesus was saying.

**So what did he mean? Here are the clues: **

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v. 40)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him. Believe what?

Believe that his death—the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood—pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness.

Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” his blood.

This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.

When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief:

“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (vv. 63-64).

-desireingGod.org

 

[Bill_Pick]

Wrong.

Jesus said NOTHING about “specie.” What you are doing is EXACTLY what The Catholic Church has been rebuking in the Zwinglian Protestants for nearly 500 years, a non-literal interpretation of the Eucharistic texts, of putting words INTO the text that clearly aren’t there and for “arguing away” the words that ARE there. Ironcially, The Catholic Church dogmatically did EXACTLY the same thing with EXACTLY the same texts.

You seem to miss that Jesus and Paul specifically and solely said “IS.” THAT is the issue of Real Presence, and we are in full and complete agreement on that doctrine. Transubstantiation - a new and unique dogma of The Catholic Church alone - is a dogmatic interpertation of the words “specie” “accidents” “converts” “becomes” and “changes” in the Eucharistic texts without even noticing that those words don’t even exist in any Eucharistic texts. It is dealing with a non-issue, a moot theological point. And in doing so, it is guilty of the identical thing for which it (rightly!) rebukes Zwingian Protestants - for an arbitrary, split, half-literal/half not interpretation, for inserting foreign and missing thoughts, and for explaining away was clearly is there. Friend, it was my Catholic teacher’s reasons for rebuking Zwinglian Protestantism that convinced me it’s new 16th century dogma is also baseless.

.

A_

 

[wisdomseeker]

We both believe that the bible is the word of God. Therefore it has gravitas. God will never go against His written word. How come scripture does not have authority over the church but just the opposite? There are passages in scripture that are hard or contain mysteries. That does not give you license to declare authority over or change the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. You are constantly adding to the faith of Jesus. It is not the same faith as was in the first century.

God gave us His Holy Spirit and His Word to lead and guide all believers. The church should teach the word as delivered not keep adding man made rules as scripture. Things that were necessary for salvation in the first century now have additional requirements according to the church.

Jesus gave authority to the Church. in nowhere you find Jesus given authority to the Bible. once this issue is settled all others will come into place.

i quite understanding that is what you believe but it cannot be done this way. such an issue is this discussed here where we both resort to the Bible alone, how is the issue going to be settled? we believe what the CC teaches which it is also written in the Bible, but you on the other hand do not believe resorting to the same Bible. now who is to settle this issue.

as you know the rest of Scriptures were being written at the same time the Church was being built. these Scriptures were being written to the leaders of the Church to instruct the laity.

therefore, you have no authority to determine if the CC is teaching outside the Bible or not. you have no authority whatsoever to determine what is True or not. once this issue is settled all others will come into place. you have no authority whatsoever to declare a doctrine. this is only by the authority of the Church. it has been for 2000 yrs. you have no authority whatsoever to declare what is heresy or not, neither your pastor, neither martin luther, neither calvin, and so forth…have such an authority.

remember that the Church was built to lead the people and not the other way around.

Peace

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Book of Hebrews drives home the point the sacrifice of Christ was perfect and need not be repeated. Christ will NEVER have his blood poured out or his flesh broken again…
For me and many others, that is a strong argument against Transubstantiation.

** RE: John 6, In CONTEXT:**

Then he said, “And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (v. 51).

This sounded like cannibalism. His listeners balked. He pressed it even further:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink (John 6:53-55).

The “Jesus for King” campaign evaporated. The people walked away shaking their heads. The crazy man wants us to eat his flesh! They completely misunderstood what Jesus was saying.

**So what did he mean? Here are the clues: **

How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (v. 27, 29)

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (v. 35)

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (v. 40)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (v. 47)

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him. Believe what?

Believe that his death—the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood—pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness.

Believing this is how we “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” his blood.

This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to forget the very core of what we believe.

When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief:

“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (vv. 63-64).

-desireingGod.org

and these two points:

No where in the Bible do we ever see a miracle performed where the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. Yet, after the priest performs his super natural act of transubstantiation, the wafer and wine look, taste, smell and feel the same. It has the appearance of a counterfeit miracle because no noticeable change has occurred. When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

It is stated that the “eating and drinking” in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life.

If both are literal we have a dilemma.
What if a person “believes” but does not “eat or drink”? Or what if a person “eats and drinks” but does not “believe?”
This could occur any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize the interpretation of these two verses is to accept one as figurative(eating flesh) and one as literal. (believing)

that sounds good but that is not what Jesus said, is it?
that is what you said. you put Scriptures together to prove what you believe.

i can also do that. we can take the time when the Hebrews ate the mannah from Heaven and many died. St Paul tells the people that those who partake the Body and Blood of Christ without discernment will bring condenmenation upon themselves and some had died. and many others Scriptures can be brought here. but this is not enough for you to believe it, is it? notice that St Paul never said anything about symbolism. nowhere in the Bible you see the word symbolic about the Body and Blood of Christ. but you have inserted the word symbolic, yet you accuse of Catholics of adding to the Bible.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Wrong.

Jesus said NOTHING about “specie.” What you are doing is EXACTLY what The Catholic Church has been rebuking in the Zwinglian Protestants for nearly 500 years, a non-literal interpretation of the Eucharistic texts, of putting words INTO the text that clearly, obviously aren’t there and for “arguing away” the words that ARE there. Ironcially, The Catholic Church dogmatically did EXACTLY the same thing with EXACTLY the same texts.

You seem to miss that Jesus and Paul specifically and solely said “IS.” THAT is the issue of Real Presence, and we are in full and complete agreement on that doctrine. Transubstantiation - a new and unique dogma of The Catholic Church alone - is a dogmatic interpertation of the words “specie” “accidents” “converts” “becomes” and “changes” in the Eucharistic texts without even noticing that those words don’t even exist in any Eucharistic texts. It is dealing with a non-issue, a moot theological point. And in doing so, it is guilty of the identical thing for which it (rightly!) rebukes Zwingian Protestants - for an arbitrary, split, half-literal/half not interpretation, for inserting foreign and missing thoughts, and for explaining away was clearly is there. Friend, it was my Catholic teacher’s reasons for rebuking Zwinglian Protestantism that convinced me it’s new 16th century dogma is also baseless.

.

A_

I don’t know what that response means or signifies. Sorry.

.

 

[RedBert]

that sounds good but that is not what Jesus said, is it?
.

What Jesus said was:
John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

you put Scriptures together to prove what you believe.

EVERY BIBLE VERSE I USED WAS FROM JOHN CHAPTER 6 in sequence!
Should I just paste the whole chapter in the post ?

 

[RedBert]

Jesus gave authority to the Church. in nowhere you find Jesus given authority to the Bible. once this issue is settled all others will come into place.

i quite understanding that is what you believe but it cannot be done this way. such an issue is this discussed here where we both resort to the Bible alone, how is the issue going to be settled? we believe what the CC teaches which it is also written in the Bible, but you on the other hand do not believe resorting to the same Bible. now who is to settle this issue.

as you know the rest of Scriptures were being written at the same time the Church was being built. these Scriptures were being written to the leaders of the Church to instruct the laity.

therefore, you have no authority to determine if the CC is teaching outside the Bible or not. you have no authority whatsoever to determine what is True or not. once this issue is settled all others will come into place. you have no authority whatsoever to declare a doctrine. this is only by the authority of the Church. it has been for 2000 yrs. you have no authority whatsoever to declare what is heresy or not, neither your pastor, neither martin luther, neither calvin, and so forth…have such an authority.

remember that the Church was built to lead the people and not the other way around.

Peace

you sound just like Jews ARGUING with Jesus in John 8
“We are Abraham’s descendants”
“Abraham is our father,”
Abraham this and Abraham that…
We are RIGHT with God because of our heritage.
We are RIGHT with God because of group membership.

FYI:
“All of Israel is not Israel”

The church (group of people) in the New Testament show little resemblance to the Catholic Church today.

 

[wisdomseeker]

you sound just like Jews ARGUING with Jesus in John 8
“We are Abraham’s descendants”
“Abraham is our father,”
Abraham this and Abraham that…
We are RIGHT with God because of our heritage.
We are RIGHT with God because of group membership.

FYI:
“All of Israel is not Israel”

The church (group of people) in the New Testament show little resemblance to the Catholic Church today.

I guess you can say whatever you want. what you cannot show is evidence for what you believe besides what you think the Bible says. but you have no authority whatsoever to determine if what the CC teaches is in accordance with the Bible or not. you have no authority. the Church is the one leading the people and not the other way around.

Peace.

 

[RedBert]

I guess you can say whatever you want. what you cannot show is evidence for what you believe besides what you think the Bible says. but you have no authority whatsoever to determine if what the CC teaches is in accordance with the Bible or not. you have no authority. the Church is the one leading the people and not the other way around.

Peace.

so sad…

The people** are** the church
God’s Word ** is **the Authority

 

[wisdomseeker]

so sad…

The people are the church
God’s Word is the Authority

how God’s Word is the authority? where is that in the Bible? show me please. and i dont mean that God’s Word is not to be treated wiht the outmost respect. because it is. what God says it is. it has authority in a sense that God has spoken, therefore is True. but you are confusing this authority with the authority of enterpretation of His Word.

can you deny that the Word needs enterpretation? i hope not.

where does it say that when we have a dispute to go to the Bible?

once the issue of authority is settled among Chrisitans, all else come into place.

Peace.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What Jesus said was:
John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

EVERY BIBLE VERSE I USED WAS FROM JOHN CHAPTER 6 in sequence!
Should I just paste the whole chapter in the post ?

now, we are back on the same issue again. who is the authority to determine if i have the correct enterpretation or you? who do we go to settle this issue? we already went to the Bible, i do not agree with your enterpretation and you dont agree with mine. where do we from here?

Peace.

 

[jericho777]

Jesus gave authority to the Church. in nowhere you find Jesus given authority to the Bible. once this issue is settled all others will come into place.

i quite understanding that is what you believe but it cannot be done this way. such an issue is this discussed here where we both resort to the Bible alone, how is the issue going to be settled? we believe what the CC teaches which it is also written in the Bible, but you on the other hand do not believe resorting to the same Bible. now who is to settle this issue.

as you know the rest of Scriptures were being written at the same time the Church was being built. these Scriptures were being written to the leaders of the Church to instruct the laity.

therefore, you have no authority to determine if the CC is teaching outside the Bible or not. you have no authority whatsoever to determine what is True or not. once this issue is settled all others will come into place. you have no authority whatsoever to declare a doctrine. this is only by the authority of the Church. it has been for 2000 yrs. you have no authority whatsoever to declare what is heresy or not, neither your pastor, neither martin luther, neither calvin, and so forth…have such an authority.

remember that the Church was built to lead the people and not the other way around.

Peace

Jesus gave the body of believers authority not the church an organization.

Jesus was always quoting scripture making it authoritative. Scripture was always the basis for His arguments not traditions of men. He is also the living word of God made flesh.

You can rely on fallible men to settle your disputes but I will choose the infallible word of God. Faith and morals are always settled by the word of God.

The NT scriptures do not limit the power of laity to ascend to leadership. The defined role of leaders is not of an elevated superiority but more of an elder fellow co laborer in Christ.

Believers authority comes from the bible not an organization. If what the CC teaches does not line up with scripture they should be called into question. The bible does not take a rocket scientist to interporate it.

 

[jericho777]

you sound just like Jews ARGUING with Jesus in John 8
“We are Abraham’s descendants”
“Abraham is our father,”
Abraham this and Abraham that…
We are RIGHT with God because of our heritage.
We are RIGHT with God because of group membership.

FYI:
“All of Israel is not Israel”

The church (group of people) in the New Testament show little resemblance to the Catholic Church today.

Very true we are called to be a body not an organization. There is a difference.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Jesus gave the body of believers authority not the church an organization.

Jesus was always quoting scripture making it authoritative. Scripture was always the basis for His arguments not traditions of men. He is also the living word of God made flesh.

You can rely on fallible men to settle your disputes but I will choose the infallible word of God. Faith and morals are always settled by the word of God.

The NT scriptures do not limit the power of laity to ascend to leadership. The defined role of leaders is not of an elevated superiority but more of an elder fellow co laborer in Christ.

Believers authority comes from the bible not an organization. If what the CC teaches does not line up with scripture they should be called into question. The bible does not take a rocket scientist to interporate it.

Really! so, according to you the people is the one in authority in the Church, correct?

is it what you are saying?

now explain to me how is everyone in authority? who teaches and who listens? how is that we both are authorities and you keep insist on having authority over me?