Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[Cinette]

He means to feed and be immersed in Him spiritually, not literally. He is speaking of spiritual food, not carnal food.

For 1500 years Christians believed in the Real Presence. The Apostles did, those who were close to him, those who stepped into their shoes did. Despite Luther’s heresay he believed in the Real Presence. From Luther, Calvin, Zwingli’s break emanated the denominations, split after split after split. Down the road from us is the “Family Church” and you have the Saddleback Church (I wondered about tht name and then reached the conclusion that it could only be the name of a district or a town… These Churches are believers in the"symolic" presence.

When you enter a Catholic Mass you bless yourself with Holy Water to remember your Baptism. You enter the Church and genuflect - that little red light near the tabernacle signifies that the Blessed Sacrament (Jesus) is there. You proceed to make the sign of the cross and greet Jesus. There is silence out of reverence as the people file into the Church for Mass. Then the Mass begins. After the Entrance Antifon the Priest opens his arms and greets the congregation* “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”* We respond “And also with you” and there are prayers followed by the Penitential Rite when we examine our consciences after the Priest says “My brothers and sisters to prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries let us call to mind our sins”. After a pause and silence we say the “I confess…” the Kyrie follows - Lord have Mercy, Christ have Mercy… “May Almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins and bring us to everlasting life”. Amen

Then we have the Gloria - often in song “Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth” and I am sure the Angels and Saints in Heaven join us as we sing this beautiful prayer…

The Liturgy of the Word follows…On Sundays we have Two readings (OT and Epistle) with the chanting of the Psalm in between - the singing of the Psalm is to beautiful and moving also… After the 2nd reading we have the Alleluia which is also sung. The Gospel follows and then the Homily. The Homily is a commentary/teaching on the passages read and their connectedness (the Priest never chooses the theme - it is in the Lectionary and our Missals and the same the world over). After the Homily there is the Creed “I believe in One God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen…”

The Prayer of the Faithful follows and the Reader will call out all the intentions and we respond “Receive our prayer”…

Now follows the Liturgy of the Eucharist.“Pray brethen, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father” says the priest and we respond Amen. We offer ourselves to God in the Offertary. There is the Preface and we all stand up and we pray “Holy, Holy, Holy God of Power and Might…”

Then there is the Eucharistic Prayer and the Consecration and then the Priest says: Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith and we have several responses, one being:

“*Lord, by your cross and resurrection you have set us free. You are the Saviour of the world” *

We say the Our Father and then the Priest says the prayer of Peace and opening is arms he says “Peace be with you” We respond and then we offer peace to each other.

The Rite of Communion follows and we receive the *Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins on the Cross (once and for all). *

We return to our bench, kneel and offer thanks.

The Priest says the final prayer and gives us a Blessing and says “Go in Peace to Love and Serve the Lord!”.

Amen.

This is our beautiful Mass which gives us light, love and grace.

May God Bless you all

Cinette

 

[Church_Militant]

I am a Protestant who believes that Christ is truly present in the consecrated bread and wine every Sunday at my Anglican church. Do you believe this or do you feel that it is truly a symbolistic example of the Lord’s Supper?

No offense intended but I don’t think Anglican communion is the Eucharistic Real Presence for the same reason that Pope John Paul the Great didn’t.

Ecclesia de Eucharistia (Note especially sections 43-46)

Here’s what I believe in a blog article that I wrote.
The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[Church_Militant]

He means to feed and be immersed in Him spiritually, not literally. He is speaking of spiritual food, not carnal food.

Really? Show me where it specifically says that.

 

[hughi]

John 17:20-21 How you ever known anyone that was saved that did not have a personal relationship with Christ? If you honestly think this is not so or not important, than you are worse than I thought.

It’s a good point for reflection. Several things come to mind:

“I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

“My God, my God, why have you foresaken me?”

And last of all, “I AM.”

So what’s my point? I suspect that Catholics and Protestants alike, not to mention a myriad of other “groups” assent to the idea of God being personal. It’s a theme beginning from the very first chapter of the Bible, and repeated hundreds of times through Scipture.

Now I hope none of you are asking, “what does this have to do with Christ?”

If Christ isn’t God, then who cares if anyone has a personal relationship with him or not? As a lifelong believer, I can tell you frankly that I’ve never felt I had a personal relationship with Moses, David or Solomon. But Christ is a different story.

Let’s look at the question in a new light. “Have you ever known anyone who was saved who didn’t have a personal relationship with Christ?”

Or how about this revision? “Have you ever known anyone who was saved who didn’t have a personal relationship with God (Christ)?”

Or taken from another angle, “How do you know who is saved and who isn’t, and whether or not they (truly) have a personal realtionship with God (or Christ)?”

Or again, “Have you ever speculated that someone was saved, and didn’t realize that their personal relationship with God (Christ) was extremely adverse, and that their soul was therefore not destined to Heaven but for Hell?”

Let’s not forget: Judas had a personal relationship with Christ, as did King Herod. And, of course, the Magi had a personal realtionship with Christ, and were most likely dead before He paid our debt on the Cross.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

He means to feed and be immersed in Him spiritually, not literally. He is speaking of spiritual food, not carnal food.

**Hi Non,

WRONG! Jesus was talking about His Body and Blood nurishing our souls physically as the words feed our minds spiritually! Even fools like me know that. I was taught to read by sister Anna Maria in the 2nd grade. **

 

[Realcatholicgk]

It all started in the Upper Room on the day the passover Lambs were slaughtered.

**Hi Non,

Actually it all started when God said “let there be light” and the Word was with Him and the Word was made flesh!

The Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. These attacks show that they are not always literalists. This is obvious in the interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper.

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said. Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” At this point the Jews thought him to be speaking metaphorically! To correct this wrong belief, Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh**.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they did understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

Jesus made no attempt to change or soften what he said, no attempt to correct any “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why were there no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding could be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66). He allowed them to not be saved!

Remember this is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely “doctrinal reasons”… If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t Jesus call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of Him, and His disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with Him had He said He was speaking only symbolically. He wasn’t and made that clear!

Not only didn’t He correct these protesters he repeated it Twelve times! He said He was the bread that came down from heaven; four times He said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not have been more explicit. To reject what he said is to actually reject Christ and to stop being His follower. It is that simple. Like the other protesters forsaking him for the same doctrinal reasons. His commandment and instructions required of His followers to actually eat His Body and drink His Blood to obtain eternal Life. To reject that is to reject jesus! No wonder Satan blinds his followers! Protestants could actually be assured of redemption just by following Jesus commandments rather than having to depend solely on God’s mercy and the graces of the Catholic church to obtain redemption. Poor Protestants!

We must pray for the conversion of these sinners. The redemption of their eternal soul could depend on our assistance.

God Bless

 

[joe370]

Excerpt from John 6…

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

They don’t believe Jesus was speaking symbolically! They are disturbed by Jesus’ statement.

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him…

**How does one eat something symbolically? If I handed you a hamburger and told you to eat it symbolically, what would you do? If Jesus was referring, exclusivly to His Sacrifice at Calvary when He said: **

unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Why didn’t He clarify, when His followers were walking away? Jesus even used the word gnaw in lieu of eat to drive His point home; that was the very reason why some walked away. Was their eternal salvation unimportant to Jesus?

These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

**Why is “this saying” hard to accept?
**
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you…

**Why did it shock them? **

But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

**Jesus knew the people that would not believe him, in His day --that would betray Him --just as He does today; This really bothered me as a former Lutheran; I felt as though I was walking away from Jesus --betraying Him, just as some of His first followers did. It really ate away at me, metaphorically speaking. See how clear, talking in metaphor, could have been, if that was Jesus intention? **

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

**Why did they walk away, even after witnessing miracles??? **

Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

**If Peter, the Apostles and disciples, who didn’t walk away --BELIEVED, although not clearly yet; that would occur at Pentecost, when ALL would be made clear, thanks to the Holy Spirit -----why don’t you (all non believers in the true presence) --believe as well? Pretty cut and dried if you ask me!
**
**The word for eat is esthiÅ, but Jesus uses the word
phagein - to chew or gnaw —WHY, if He is reputedly speaking in metaphor. Why would Jesus use such graphic word? Makes no sense to me!
Sarx, a translation of this, can mean physical flesh, but is also used in the context, in the Bible, as mere human nature. However, “Flesh” --used in the figurative sense, refers to the **sin-prone aspect of human nature. **Christ’s sarx? Really??? Yikes! Jesus Christ is not telling His family to figuratively nourish themselves on His sin-prone human nature --is He? He is telling them to nourish themselves on his life-giving flesh.
**
I couldn’t deny this simple extrapolation, as a former Lutheran; how can you justify your denial? Seriously, no sarcasm intended; I really want to understand?

I am all ears --what do you know, another obvious metaphor; nothing metaphorical about the words:

unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

True food and true drink —need I say more…

 

[benedictus2]

You need to go back and look at the posts associated with the above…the topic is your condemnation of myself, which is implicit in your comment; since I am not in the Catholic fold…which is fine, you have your opinion and beliefs.

Quite the contrary. I do not condemn you at all. That you are not Catholic (at this stage ) is not your fault. We always take on the faith of our fathers. That I am a Catholic is God’s grace alone because He willed that I be born into a devoutly Catholic household.

I do not even condemn Muslims and other non-Christians so why would I condemn a fellow Christian? Does not make sense.

And you may not be in the Catholic fold but you are always included in our prayers. You are my brother in Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

He means to feed and be immersed in Him spiritually, not literally. He is speaking of spiritual food, not carnal food.

Sorry but no. He was speaking of His flesh. There is no getting away from that terminology.

 

[joe370]

** Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post
He means to feed and be immersed in Him spiritually, not literally. He is speaking of spiritual food, not carnal food.**

Why didn’t Jesus just say, feed and be immersed in Me spiritually, not literally

Instead, He said:

*unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. *

If He meant to say, what you claim, then why did some of His followers walk away? Why didn’t Jesus say:

Come back, what I meant to say was --feed and be immersed in Me spiritually, not literally.

Think about it!!!

 

[benedictus2]

**Sarx, a translation of this, can mean physical flesh, but is also used in the context, in the Bible, as mere human nature. However, “Flesh” --used in the figurative sense, refers to the **sin-prone aspect of human nature. ****Christ’s sarx? Really??? Yikes! Jesus Christ is not telling His family to figuratively nourish themselves on His sin-prone human nature --is He? He is telling them to nourish themselves on his life-giving flesh.

Very good point!:clapping:

 

[benedictus2]

A mystery by definition is something not yet revealed…Christ has revealed Himself…keep on being mysterious, which is part of your fascination and it might lead to destruction. I said it might, not it would, but might.

Here is a definition of mystery: something that baffles understanding and cannot be explained.

Mystery has nothing to do with revelation. Jesus has revealed himself and yet the Trinity is a mystery. Anyone who says other wise is truly deluded.

Christ has revealed Himself but not entirely. For example, how can God be man? These two things are contradictions in themselves and yet it is true. It is a mytery.

Our salvation is a mystery. How can God possibly die? Why would God need to die to save us? These are all to some extent mysteries for they cannot be fully explained

It is is your understanding of msytery that is deficient.

 

[benedictus2]

John 17:20-21 How you ever known anyone that was saved that did not have a personal relationship with Christ? If you honestly think this is not so or not important, than you are worse than I thought.

And another thing. Would you say that Moses had a personal relationship with Christ? How about Abraham? How about Kind David? Elijah?

Does that mean that they are all damned because they did not have a personal relationship with Christ?

 

[benedictus2]

Notice in verse 20 “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” here Jesus expounds on the significance of His blood being shed as a promise of the New Covenant - notice He said “in My blood”, not “drink my blood”.

And what do you think they did why the cup of wine? Stare at it?

Read Scott Hahn’s “A Father who keeps His promise” and you will truly understand this phrase “the new covenant in my blood”.

 

[Robertwilliam]

Another thing I would like to add,
When St. Paul wrote, " if one eats the bread and drinks the cup unworthily, will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 1 cor. 11:27

" For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s Body." vs. 29.

If what we have here is JUST mere bread and wine and not Christ’s TRUE Body and Blood, why are we condemned for the act of eating ordinary food?

But like I wrote before, the whole Catholic Church, Oriental, Eastern, and Western have always taught the same thing.
I have to go now, I will be receiving the REAL BODY AND BLOOD of Christ our God today

 

[Realcatholicgk]

And what do you think they did why the cup of wine? Stare at it?

**Hi Ben,

Non- did the typical Protestant thing, He didn’t show the additional content: This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the … “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it,…” **He really has to read the entire chapter. It might help open his eyes to jesus and the truth!
Did you ever wonder why Satan wants Protestants to drink grape juice rather than real wine? IMHO He wants to insure that no blessings comes to them through their false practices. I would not be surprised to learn that some groups even use Oreos because they taste better than bread! After all for them it is only a symbol.

Well I am off to eat my lord and savior as He commanded. I will say a special pray prior to receiving His body and Blood for all my Protestant brethren that Jesus opens their hearts and mind to His truth!

Read Scott Hahn’s “A Father who keeps His promise” and you will truly understand this phrase “the new covenant in my blood”.

**One he won’t read it. Two, even if he did the devil would corrupt his thinking. Satan has him away from any real denomination now so that he can beter control Non’s mind and heart!

He really needs our prayers!
**

 

[Protestant101]

But what does this “believeth on Him that sent me” mean?

The Muslims believe in Jesus. They believe in Allah who is the Father of Jesus who sent Jesus.

The Buddhists believe in Jesus. They think he is a good man.

The heretics believed in “The Father of Jesus who sent Him” but they beleived Jesus was only a man.

So what does it mean to believe in Jesus and the Father?

We get an idea of what that means in John 6. Those who did not believe in Him walked away.

If you truly believe in Him, you will know that He speaks the truth when He says that when you eat His flesh and drink His blood you will have eternal life.

That is what it means to believe in Jesus and on the Father who sent Him.

Very good points. You forgot to mention also that Satan believes in Jesus too. (see James 2:19).

Now, we are ready to ask the question: “What does that mean?”

 

[Protestant101]

And another thing. Would you say that Moses had a personal relationship with Christ? How about Abraham? How about Kind David? Elijah?

Does that mean that they are all damned because they did not have a personal relationship with Christ?

They did indeed have a personal relationship with Him.

 

[Protestant101]

benedictus2:
Very good point!:clapping:

Here is the point that you said was “good:”

Originally Posted by joe370 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cag/viewpost.gif
***Sarx, a translation of this, can mean physical flesh, but is also used in the context, in the Bible, as mere human nature. However, “Flesh” --used in the figurative sense, refers to the **sin-prone aspect of human nature. *****Christ’s sarx? Really??? Yikes! Jesus Christ is not telling His family to figuratively nourish themselves on His sin-prone human nature --is He? He is telling them to nourish themselves on his life-giving flesh.

One of the greatest misunderstandings of Christ and His salvation is when people start saying “we must be like Jesus.” Now, before you get out some more of your internet tomatoes to throw at me; just listen for a change.

It is not wrong for us to want to be like Jesus; and to seek His experience as our own. This is exactly what Jesus wants.

One of the several reasons I dared to state here that I protest the Mass is because of thinking which says: “Jesus Christ is not telling His family to figuratively nourish themselves on His sin-prone human nature --is He?”

This is a classic falsehood. Jesus wants us to do what He did and to have His experience that He had while here on earth. But how far do we carry this? I don’t see Catholics being “literal” when it comes to hanging oneself on the cross. Jesus is called a “Lion” in Rev.5:5, so why don’t you eat lion meat at Mass?

When Jesus was here on earth; He did do one thing that we are supposed to also do. Jesus overcame, the exact same way He expects us to. Jesus overcame sin from His human strength perspective, by depending upon God and His Word to get Him through - just like we are to do. There was nothing “wrong” with Jesus’ “sin-prone” human nature. To suggest otherwise is heresy.

Rev 17:14 These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they also shall overcome that are with him, called and chosen and faithful.

 

[hughi]

Hello Friends:

This stuff gets sticky, does it not? And possibly a little off the subject of this thread, so maybe we can tie the subject of “personal” realtionships with Christ together with issues and beliefs regarding the “elements” of communion.

Basically, if we agree that Jesus Christ is God, “begotten not made” and of the same and unique substance of God, then to have a relationship with Christ is to have one with God, and vice versa. So, yes, Moses had a personal realtionship with Christ, as did Abraham, David, Solomon and so forth.

It should be obvious that some “personal” relationships are more intimate and “material” than others. I previously cited the example of the Magi, who were essentially ignorant of John Chapter 6, the Pauline Letters, and essentially the entirety of New Covenant theology. But … they obviously had a “material” relationship with Christ, and therefore with God. Interestingly, most Protestants and Catholics would agree that the Magi were “led” to the Christ by God, and therefore “supernaturally.” Upon encountering the living, breathing, crying Christ, the “supernaturnal” and the “natural” lay before them in a manger surrounded by simple farm animals.

The idea of encountering Christ (God) “naturally” in the “elements” of bread and wine is obvioulsy a little more of a stretch, metaphysically speaking. It goes to the core of our understanding of what “matter” is, and ultimately the nature of God Himself. In this respect, the Eucharist is the ultimate mystical metaphysical expression of the Christian faith. For others, it’s strictly symbolic, and for others still, it is not a valid expression of any type at all.

I can understand why for some, it’s too hard a pill to swallow.

As for myself, it’s also too hard a “pill” to swallow if and when my conscience isn’t clear, and therefore impairs me from participating, and possibly drinking damnation to myself.

I suspect most people on this board, both Catholics and Protestants, have led a far better life than I have. It’s much easier to shout ones convictions from the mountaintops when certain of one’s own righteousness.