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

[Radical]

Jesus instructed his followers to partake of his body and blood.

When Jesus spoke figuratively, not one was shocked or confused.

You are wrong. For example look at John 3. When Jesus says that one must be born again, Nicodemus was confused. He responds:

“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!”

Why did so many followers leave after his statements in John 6?

first, keep in mind that nobody left that had been enabled by the Father (John 6:65 with John 6:39, 17:12 and 18:9.) Second, the Jews had very serious attitudes about diet. The statement would have been offensive even in a figurative sense. Picture a charasmatic preacher today talking to a bunch of southern baptists and explaining to them, that in order to follow him, they would have to sodomize him. I would suggest that it wouldn’t matter to them if the preacher was only talking figuratively, the idea is so repugnant that the use of those words would alienate the audience immediately.

Paul, and the entire early Church documented the understanding that Jesus is indeed with us in body and spirit in the Eucharist.

Paul did no more than restate Christ’s figurative words. The early church, for the most part, began by restating Jesus’s figurative words and slowly sank into error. The Didache refers to broken bread and refers to spiritual food and drink…no mention of body or blood.

Why deny it?

Because I don’t have good reason to believe it…why deny your senses and force a literal interpretation upon a passage so that it enjoins a crime?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Paul did no more than restate Christ’s figurative words. The early church, for the most part, began by restating Jesus’s figurative words and slowly sank into error. The Didache refers to broken bread and refers to spiritual food and drink…no mention of body or blood.

Because I don’t have good reason to believe it…why deny your senses and force a literal interpretation upon a passage so that it enjoins a crime?

Paul was explicit in his own words:

1 cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[thirdn6]

Here are some quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Churchhas fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ."

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses’, says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority’. For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Saviour in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’

1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body- the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been calledto form but one body. The Eucharist fulfills this call: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper… profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Well…

 

[Radical]

Hello Brian,

The difference here, however, is context. When questioned by the disciples can we really eat his flesh, Jesus emphasizes the literal meaing of the words (truly, truly).

Jesus also clarifies at the beginning (v.35, 40) that he is talking about belief and at the end (v 63) that his words are “spirit”. If you are inclined to a fully literal interpretation of John 6, you should keep these things in mind:

a) Jesus says ( v.33,35,41, 48, 51) that he (his flesh) is bread, whereas the RCC believes the converse (or that bread is his flesh)

b) Jesus says at verse 51 that “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever”…yet many eat the bread of a RC eucharist and will not have eteranl life. A (if not THE) central message of John’s gospel is that belief in Jesus leads to eternal life and I expect that you understand that merely eating a wafer doesn’t yield eternal life

In other words, I bet your interpretation of John 6 isn’t purely literal.

Also, significantly, in other passages, when Jesus disciples mistake his statements as literal, when he means them to be metephorical, he corrects them (e.g., when Jesus warned them to “beware the leven of the pharasies” and they mistook him to be speaking of “bread” - he corrected them and explained it as a metephor).

Not always, it would seem. At 2:19 Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” There is no indication that Jesus explained his meaning at that time, and it appears that the disciples only recalled that statement after he rose again (and it then made sense to them).

This is not figurative/metephorical speech. As noted in earlier replies the literal nature of this doctrine is reiterated by Paul in Corinthians.

with respect, if the literal nature of the doctrine was clearly reiterated by Paul then we wouldn’t have a disagreement. Paul, twice states that the thing is to be done in remembrance of Jesus…no other purpose is mentioned and specifically, it is not stated to be done for the “transsubstantiation” of Jesus’s body. Paul thrice refers to eating bread and does not refer to eating flesh. With respect to verse 11:29 which reads: “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” …one can recognize the body of Jesus as being represented by the bread (after all, that is what Paul labels it, bread, not body or flesh). As such, given what Paul had said previously, the recognition should be of a symbol and not of a actual body (cuz again, Paul still called it bread).

Blessings,

Brian

Thanks, may God bless you too.

 

[ufamtobie]

I am glad your church does not teach that everyone who does not believe in transubstantiation goes to hell…your private interpretation aside…

Hello Brian,

I am not judging no one, but it is true that one must believe in the true presents of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and Eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood, yes in order to be saved. Jesus said this NOT ME!

Those who left Jesus Christ over the teachings that one has to Eat and Drink His Body and Blood were anti-christ’s plain and simple. For all who leave Jesus and follow Him no longer are anti-christs.

So therefore if the people of today don’t believe in the true presents of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist then one must be an Ant-christ wether they know it or not!

Jesus said that many will come to him and say we cured in your name… and Jesus will say unto them get away from me I don’t know you!

We must listen to The teachings of the Church which it is guided by the Holy Spirit!

I judge no one!

Ufamtobie

 

[look3467]

The desire to practice communion, as per your choice, or by the institutions requirements, does in no way negate the works of Christ in our salvation.

Christs works were to save, period, by offering mankind a new creation via the rebirth of our dead spiritual state.

Hence: Nicodemus’ lack of understanding.

What matters on this side of the cross is that we by reason of knowledge of the saving grace of God, we live our lives under the full backing of Jesus via His Holy Spirit in loving our God and neighbor.

As for the number 666, I have this explanation.
1st Adam=6 + second Adam=6 + the new Adam=6.
1st death, 2nd cancels the first, and the 3rd time God brings (life) it to pass
Ref: Gen 41:32 And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; [it is] because the thing [is] established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.

Also, was not Jesus considered to be a blasphemer by His prosecutors? Why should they worship the lamb? (a beast)?

There is more to all this than what is understood. Only to them who would desire the meat of the word is understanding granted.

And if granted, grave responsibility goes with it.

My views.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Hisalone]

You are wrong. For example look at John 3. When Jesus says that one must be born again, Nicodemus was confused. He responds:

“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!”

first, keep in mind that nobody left that had been enabled by the Father (John 6:65 with John 6:39, 17:12 and 18:9.) Second, the Jews had very serious attitudes about diet. The statement would have been offensive even in a figurative sense. Picture a charasmatic preacher today talking to a bunch of southern baptists and explaining to them, that in order to follow him, they would have to sodomize him. I would suggest that it wouldn’t matter to them if the preacher was only talking figuratively, the idea is so repugnant that the use of those words would alienate the audience immediately.

Paul did no more than restate Christ’s figurative words. The early church, for the most part, began by restating Jesus’s figurative words and slowly sank into error. The Didache refers to broken bread and refers to spiritual food and drink…no mention of body or blood.

Because I don’t have good reason to believe it…why deny your senses and force a literal interpretation upon a passage so that it enjoins a crime?

You are correct on all counts.

 

[Hisalone]

Here are some quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Churchhas fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ."

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses’, says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority’. For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Saviour in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’

1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body- the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been calledto form but one body. The Eucharist fulfills this call: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper… profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Well…

Words of men which have no meaning in this discussion

 

[Hisalone]

Paul was explicit in his own words:

1 cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

You have taken out of context and put a false interpretation of this passage.
How the Corinthian church (notice not CATHOLIC church) was eats and drinks unworthily is that they were greedy and did not share in the love feast.
CONTEXT,CONTEXT,CONTEXT

 

[GKC]

I never had any doubt SIA - I always enjoy your posts which are uniformly thoughtful and respectful - even though we disagree with which church is “the one holy catholic and apostolic Church”.

I do think that the Anglo-Catholic branch of the Anglican Church (as distinguished from the American episcopalian Church) is very close in doctrine and liturgy to the Catholic Church - the principal distinction being papal authority (keys to the kingdom, etc).

Blessings,

Brian

Yep.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[ralphinal]

To my thinking, there are only two times where Jesus did not explain further what he had said to those who listened. One was when he spoke of his own death and resurrection and the other was John 6. Once he had died and rose again, all of them saw what he had been saying. In John 6, if he did not mean it literally, why did he not explain it? There were times when he explained things to the 12 when others were not around. This is not the case, either. Why?

Am I asking the wrong question?

And, in the spirit of CHristmas, we should all think about what Bethlehem means.

HOUSE OF BREAD

 

[Radical]

To my thinking, there are only two times where Jesus did not explain further what he had said to those who listened. One was when he spoke of his own death and resurrection and the other was John 6.

There is more. Apparently Jesus’s words at John 21:22 also led to a misunderstanding that went uncorrected.

In John 6, if he did not mean it literally, why did he not explain it?

It seems that any way you cut it, Jesus was not particularly interested in making his meaning clear. If clarity is demanded and if Jesus was really putting forward the RC position then he should have gone on to provide an explanation such as:

Well, let me be clear on a few things. When I said that I am the true bread, I actually had it backwards. It is not that I am truly bread and only have the appearance (accidents) of flesh, but rather, what I meant is that I will give you all a sacrament by which bread will really become my flesh whilst retaining all the physical attributes of bread. As such, there is no need whatsoever for any offense for I am not requiring you to actually gnaw at my flesh (don’t take my words literally). Instead, when you eat what looks like bread at that sacrament, you will be eating my body, but b/c none of the physical attributes of my body will be present you will not be eating my body in a cannibalistic manner, so relax…no need to leave.

There were times when he explained things to the 12 when others were not around. This is not the case, either. Why?

Am I asking the wrong question?

No, it is a fair question…and it is a question all must answer and not just the ones who hold to a symbolic interpretation.

And, in the spirit of CHristmas, we should all think about what Bethlehem means.

HOUSE OF BREAD

I wouldn’t make too much of it…Jesus is the bread of heaven whether or not you might want to also call him the bread of Bethlehem…and in any event, I am not aware of any Christian group that holds that he was literally bread clothed in the accidents of flesh and blood. As such, the “I am bread” bit is to be taken figuratively.

 

[ralphinal]

There is more. Apparently Jesus’s words at John 21:22 also led to a misunderstanding that went uncorrected.

But that one was somewhat explained then and there

It seems that any way you cut it, Jesus was not particularly interested in making his meaning clear. If clarity is demanded and if Jesus was really putting forward the RC position then he should have gone on to provide an explanation such as:

Well, let me be clear on a few things. When I said that I am the true bread, I actually had it backwards. It is not that I am truly bread and only have the appearance (accidents) of flesh, but rather, what I meant is that I will give you all a sacrament by which bread will really become my flesh whilst retaining all the physical attributes of bread. As such, there is no need whatsoever for any offense for I am not requiring you to actually gnaw at my flesh (don’t take my words literally). Instead, when you eat what looks like bread at that sacrament, you will be eating my body, but b/c none of the physical attributes of my body will be present you will not be eating my body in a cannibalistic manner, so relax…no need to leave.

But at the same time, he did not say “Look, I am only being figurative. Obeying me is eating my flesh. Doing the will of the Father is Drinking my Blood.”

I have a guess that this was perfectly understood after the Last Supper and Pentecost. “Oh, snap,” Peter said, “It all makes sense now.”

No, it is a fair question…and it is a question all must answer and not just the ones who hold to a symbolic interpretation.

For 1,600 years, we all believed he was literal. Suddenly, Calvin and some others thought that their brains were so big. Does the fact that 16 centuries of Christians, including those taught by the Apostles, thought it mean nothing?

I wouldn’t make too much of it…Jesus is the bread of heaven whether or not you might want to also call him the bread of Bethlehem…and in any event, I am not aware of any Christian group that holds that he was literally bread clothed in the accidents of flesh and blood. As such, the “I am bread” bit is to be taken figuratively.

It is not Jesus saying that he is bread, it is Jesus saying that the Bread is Jesus! IF GOd can become man, why can Jesus not be present literally in bread.

Are you missing the fact that in order for the passover meal to be complete, the LAMB MUST BE CONSUMED? It is not enough that he be offered.

 

[bethndanny]

Are you missing the fact that in order for the passover meal to be complete, the LAMB MUST BE CONSUMED? It is not enough that he be offered.

Yes! Very great point here!!

 

[JonNC]

I have a guess that this was perfectly understood after the Last Supper and Pentecost. “Oh, snap,” Peter said, “It all makes sense now.”

It is not Jesus saying that he is bread, it is Jesus saying that the Bread is Jesus! IF GOd can become man, why can Jesus not be present literally in bread.

Ralph,
To me, this is why John 6 is such a difficult passage to use in defending the real presence, because in John 6:35 He does say
“I am the bread of life”. It has the same markings of figurative language as “I am the door.”, etc.
Instead, in the accounts of the last supper, He says, while holding the bread, “This is my body” (“this is me”, instead of, “I am this”). This is the literal words that make clear that the real presence. John 6 may, indeed point to it in retrospect, as you point out with Peter, but the accounts of the Last Supper have the literal language.

Are you missing the fact that in order for the passover meal to be complete, the LAMB MUST BE CONSUMED? It is not enough that he be offered

True.

Jon

 

[look3467]

“My meat is to do the will of him that sent me” (Joh 4:32-34);

“My Meat”? literal or figurative?

Jhn 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

What meat is Jesus talking about? Physical or figurative?

If we can learn to understand the spiritual meanings of physical meaning words, we could have a whole different view of what God really means.

We argue, and debate the definition of words from a human perspective missing the spiritual message seen only by the aid of the Holy Spirits revelations.

The presence of Gods spirit in us varies according to our state of mind, and heart.

If we believe that God’s presence is at it’s strength in us while partaking of the Lord’s Supper then it will be, because our minds and heart is set on it.

But I could lock myself behind a closet door, meditate and feel the same presence.

I have no argument against any practice by where a person feels closest to God.

My understanding is that God looks at the heart over what is on the outside.

The outside can be a Jew, catholic, Muslim or any other race, belief system. As long as the heart is right with God, God is right with us.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[NonCatholic]

The reference to eat this bread and drink this blood is an analogy to the bread of life, it is the salvation message. The many in the crowd who did not get it asked themselves; how can we eat His flesh and drink His blood (literally); so they walked away in disbelief because they did not get the analogy. Christ only needed one sacrifice for all sin and He chose to make that Himself. The same type of salvation analogy was used with the Samaritan woman at the well where Jesus said that anyone who drinks this water will never thirst; the Samaritan said Sir, give me this water… She did not say where is your spout Did she walk away with salvation? Why?

 

[thirdn6]

Words of men which have no meaning in this discussion

Words of “these” men = words of the magesterium = words of the Council = words of the Apostles = words of the Holy Spirit = words of Jesus who is the Word of God.

This thread is about the ‘Eucharist’ since the op mentions ‘Christ being truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine’. I posted quotations from our Catechism which are teachings from the one, holy, apostolic, and Catholic Church regarding the same. It’s never wrong to proclaim what’s being taught to us as true and to reject outright any claim that there is any other valid Eucharist outside of the Catholic Church,specifically, any claim from the protestant churches. This is also to not confuse my fellow ‘little ones’ in their Catholic faith. The mystery of the Eucharist cannot be effected by any amount of polling to make it ever become true on the protestant table. No matter how much prayers of consecration these invalid pastors or ministers do- it just won’t happen!!! The link is not there. Wake up…:slapfight:

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph,
To me, this is why John 6 is such a difficult passage to use in defending the real presence, because in John 6:35 He does say
“I am the bread of life”. It has the same markings of figurative language as “I am the door.”, etc.
Instead, in the accounts of the last supper, He says, while holding the bread, “This is my body” (“this is me”, instead of, “I am this”). This is the literal words that make clear that the real presence. John 6 may, indeed point to it in retrospect, as you point out with Peter, but the accounts of the Last Supper have the literal language.

True.

Jon

I agree. IT is one way that so many non-Catholic Christian groups mess up. Scripture is not a collection of fortune cookie messages, where each one is independant on the rest. The ENTIRE Bible must be taken as a whole to be understood. What does John 6 mean? Well, once you put it all together with the Last Supper, Paul in Corinthians, and the Old Testement understanding of a sacrefice, including Passover, it is clear that there is a Real Presence. If you take one from column a and nothing from the rest, you might end up a Jehovah’s Witness. Or worse…

 

[Radical]

I have a guess that this was perfectly understood after the Last Supper and Pentecost. “Oh, snap,” Peter said, “It all makes sense now.”

for the inner 12 it should have been clear enough well before that. They had already heard the “believe in me and receive eternal life” message. And if they listened closely that day, they would have heard:
v 40 whoever believes in the Son shall have eternal life
v 47 whoever believes in the Son shall have eternal life
v 51 whoever eats my living bread/flesh has eternal life
v 54 whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

somewhere there should have been an “Oh snap, Jesus is using ‘believing in him’ and ‘eating his flesh’ interchangably…eating is to be understood as believing.”

For 1,600 years, we all believed he was literal.

First, your math is bad. It is 1500 years between Christ and the reformation. Second you are presuming what is at issue… I see no reason to believe that a literal understanding was taught for the first 100 +/- years after Christ or that a consensus was reached until after Origen and Augustine. Third, even now less than 60% of those Americans who consider themselves RC believe in a Real Presence. Hardly “all” for 1600 years.

Does the fact that 16 centuries of Christians, including those taught by the Apostles, thought it mean nothing?

only one of those known as the apostolic fathers said anything that could be indicative of a belief in a Real Presence. Here is something that I posted on another thread. Ignatius does say:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
Please note, that given that Ignatius was addressing a gnostic position, I feel it appropriate to understand Ignatius’s argument here to be:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is (symbolically or spiritually) the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They do not confess such b/c they do not believe that Jesus possessed flesh such that he could suffer in the flesh or die in the flesh. As such, on the basis that Jesus did not have flesh, they deny that he gave us a symbol of his flesh even though we know that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ himself.

This figurative interpretation is supported by Ignatius’s figurative language when he said, “I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.”

It is not Jesus saying that he is bread,…

except that is exactly what he repeatedly said…it seems that you are inclined to pick and chose when you will insist on a literal understanding.

IF GOd can become man, why can Jesus not be present literally in bread.

well, I wouldn’t call it “literal” when the bread still smells, tastes, feels and looks exactly like bread.

Are you missing the fact that in order for the passover meal to be complete, the LAMB MUST BE CONSUMED? It is not enough that he be offered.

You seem to be missing something. If you are going to argue that the elements of the Passover meal must find an exact counterpart in the Lord’s Supper shouldn’t you be also asking whether I am missing the fact that in order for the passover meal to be complete, the LAMB’S BLOOD MUST BE DRUNK?..but if you can’t ask that second question, then why should I believe that your first question has any merit?..or, shouldn’t you be also asking that isn’t it the case that in order for the passover meal to be complete, the LAMB MUST BE SLAIN? …but if you can’t ask that third question (b/c it would invalidate the first Lord’s Supper), then why should I believe that your first question has any merit?