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

[Realcatholicgk]

I used to be Lutheran until I started studying what the Catholic Church believes about itself (not what Prots think the Church teaches). I was amazed at the depth and breadth of the Catholic Faith. It was as if I spent years in Kindergarten without realizing there was more to learn. After that, there was no turning back. The idea of Christ mixed in with bread is pretty silly if you picture it

**Hi two,
Yea, that is why the Jews kept asking Him what he meant and he explained again and again! IMO Protestants still don’t follow His commandment because they think He was lying!
Silly is also people drinking grape juice pretending it is wine, changed into Jesus’ body! I mean they could use water and pretend it is the wedding Feast of Cana.

I laugh at Protestants who refuse to drink alcohol, yet pretent to follow the bible and all its “infalliable” teachings. Such hyprocrites!

“No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” 1 Timothy 5:22-24

And their souls sure could use some of Jesus’ REAL body and blood for its ailments! **

**
"When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom –
John 2:8-10

For us to fully understand the importance of this miracle, one needs to know a bit about Jewish wedding customs. Unless he was very rich, the father of the girl to be married would often start the wine making process for the wedding when the girl was very young. The best wine, which is often the oldest wine, is brought out first and served to the early guests who are considered elite or important. As the wedding feast continues (sometimes for days), the newer (less potent) wine is brought out. Hopefully, by this time, the guests who are still lingering are too enebriated or tired to notice the lesser quality of the wine. So by the wedding host stating the best was served last implies that the wine Jesus provided from the water was definitely very fermented.
Remember a guest said “Every other man puts out the fine wine first, and when people are intoxicated, the inferior. You have reserved the fine wine until now.” Now, can you get drunk or ‘intoxicated’ with grape juice? No way! This in its self shows that it was indeed “fermented” grape juice (in other words, wine, alcoholic wine, normal wine! WINE! ).

Maybe the man was speaking metaphorical? You have to love and pray for those foolish Protestants! They think Jesus lies and don’t even believe the bible they call " infalliable" and base their beliefs on!

God Bless
**

 

[look3467]

Maybe the man was speaking metaphorical? You have to love and pray for those foolish Protestants! They think Jesus lies and don’t even believe the bible they call " infalliable" and base their beliefs on! >>>Realcatholicgk

May I remind you of this man: Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

What did Jesus say of Sodom and Gomorrah? Luk 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

Dare we overstep Jesus’ words and limit His love to whom we deem not worthy? …“I am not as other men”…

We are to receive all comers in the love of Christ regardless, because they were invited to the great feast.(Supper)

.The marriage supper: of which Jesus is our wedding garment of acceptance.

Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

“Those protestants”! (Publicans)?

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Realcatholicgk]

**
Hi AJ, **

May I remind you of this man: Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

** So what does that mean? I am worse than other men I am a sinner and know that I am. Even though I was born again I realize that I am not worthly of the promises of Christ. Who is? Jesus died for all of us. He paid the price for every sin ever committed. “He paid a debt He did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay.” His sacrafice insured the salvation of all mankind. This is a gift freely given! It only has to be accepted!
There is the problem many people are not accepting Jesus’s Gift They are not following Jesus nor his teachings. I judge not,That is God’s job. My job is to attempt tyo get myself and everyone else to obtain eternal life, Dispite ourselves!
Of course, I realize that some people have logs sticking out of their eyes because they judge people rather than listen to the truths that Jesus teaches! That is why I depend on his church and the HS. How could they let me go wrong? After all Jesus Himself established the church 2,000 years ago, and left thre HS to guide and protect it from attacked by the devil. Other churches don’t have that protection. Sigh! **

What did Jesus say of Sodom and Gomorrah? Luk 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

I am sure you have a point here. Don’t you?

Dare we overstep Jesus’ words and limit His love to whom we deem not worthy? …“I am not as other men”…

**Of course not! Dare we ignore His words, on what is needed, what He commands, What he says? Do we pretend we are God rather than Jesus? I, myself, wouldn’t dare! I am sure that Jesus can spot counterfeits a mile away! "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ Mt 7:22

Some people foolishly pretend not to be anything but a christian calling themselves non-denominational. The oldest one is less than 100 years old. Jesus real church is 2,000 years old and still headed by Jesus! That is the onlt real church teaching Jesus’ real teachings and requirements for salvation, as he told them to. He ordained THE church to be His Body here on earth he is the head! **

We are to receive all comers in the love of Christ regardless, because they were invited to the great feast.(Supper) The marriage supper: of which Jesus is our wedding garment of acceptance.

Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

**
AJ Do you remember Nat King Cole? I love to hear him singing " Rambling Rose" What a great voice God gave him! **

**When the Lord Jesus spoke about the king who made a marriage for his son, He gave to the world one of His
most comprehensive parables. The far-reaching implications of this message went beyond the immediate circumstances of His day, and embraced the entire age of grace. In speaking of the people who openly spurned the invitation to the wedding, Christ undoubtedly referred to the Jewish rejection of God’s proffered grace. Yet out of this tragedy came a greater invitation to a wider audience. "Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready .
Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. Matt 22: 9-10

“And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless” Matt 22:12

“Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” Matt 22:13

An expression of penitence at that late hour would be totally
unacceptable. The silly man had refused a king’s offer. He had done so deliberately, and had thereby insulted a king’s grace and dishonoured a king’s son. He was exceedingly guilty, and was responsible for his own misfortune. This was a tragedy which might easily have been avoided. He like us AJ should have read the invitation and understood what was required! “For many are called, but few are chosen” . Matthew 22: 1-14

"He who hath ears to hear, let him hear."Matthew 13: 9

Protestant Denominations? Easy one: Matthews 13: 39-43

God Bless

**

 

[Robbinson]

looking forward to your efforts

Ok Radical - here goes - evidence of the early Church Fathers belief in the real presence in the Eucharist (curtesy of Patrick Madrid’s fine book, “Where is that in Tradition”). Frankly, this is just a sampling of many other similar quotes (I just don’t want to type more than this )- unmistakably clear that this doctrine has been a long held belief of the early Christians.:

**St. Ignatius of Antioch, circa AD 107: ** *“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.” *(Epistle to the Romans 7:3)

St. Ignatius of Antioch: *“Take note of those who hold hereodox 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 Saviour Jesus Christ, flesh which sufferred 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.” *(Epistle to the Smyrneans 6:2-7:1)

**St. Justin Martyr, A.D. 151 **- “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common dringk do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of whch our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66).

**St. Irenaneus of Lyons, A.D. 180 **- *“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood? . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. When therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life – flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact, a member of him?” *(Against Heresies 4:33-32, 5:2)

**St. Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 350 - **"*The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ. . . Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . [being] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, bu the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cherrful face on your soul." *(Catechetical Lectures 19:7, 22:6, 9)

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Ok Radical - here goes - evidence of the early Church Fathers belief in the real presence in the Eucharist (curtesy of Patrick Madrid’s fine book, “Where is that in Tradition”). Frankly, this is just a sampling of many other similar quotes (I just don’t want to type more than this )- unmistakably clear that this doctrine has been a long held belief of the early Christians.: &c…&c… &c…

**
Hi Robbin,

Hey come on, don’t be so harsh! :tsktsk:
It makes sense that Radical doesn’t believe in the real presense. You do realize that the Blessed sacrament is a paradosis that Jesus handed down to his followers, Right?

As Catholics we know He instituted it at the Last Supper. He is the one who set it up so that it would reflect the unity in the churach that He established.

Now do you understand? Let me explain. Without the real presense there is no real church! So I am very sorry to disagree with you. But I would have to agree with the Protestants when they say it is only a symbol. In their case, it is only a symbol. In fact, their entire belief system is only a imitation representation of the real church anywaysort of a preverted example example of what the real church is all about!

Let me make sure you understand Ronnin, Decaf coffee is regular coffee with the caffeine removed, Correct? Well, Protestant communion is the Eucharist with Jesus removed! It is that simple. It is that true! The poor Protestants! I just remembered what Jesus commanded "Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink**. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. John 6: 53-59

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Matthew 11:15

I wonder how they are going to explain their foolishness to God at judgement day? They were invited to a banquet and could have dressed themselves in the “garment” of Christ’s Body and Blood but would they listen?

“But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22: 11-14

Only because of their own foolishness. So now Robbin, I want you to remember to pray for the conversion of all sinners! It is the catholic thing to do!

God Bless

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical !

Hi. Truly good to hear from you again.

I see you are engaged with Real Presence and the ancient Church in 2009 too.

what can I say? …I am a one trick pony. I seem to be off on a different tangent than most others on this thread…so starting a new one might not be a bad idea at all, but I think I only would be inclined to start if you were prepared to fully participate (and not just follow). The apologetics forum seemed a little more cordial so that might be worth considering, but I am not sure whether it is proper etiquette for me to initiate a possible confrontation on RC home soil (so to speak)…it was nice to be invited to explain myself the other time.

In what ancient Councils was it deemed necessary to precise the core eucharistic doctrine against a rampant innovation ? Or would people go around speaking the very same eucharistic language with radically different even mutually excluding understandings of it, and nobody ever would care to settle the issue ?

It would seem to me that it is quite likely that before Nicea people went around speaking the very same language concerning the divinity of Christ with radically different, even mutually exclusive understandings of it, and it took quite a few years and a determined emperor to call a council in order to settle the issue. Given that and the fact that the early church had bigger fish to fry, (such as gnosticism or Arianism) is it possible that the eucharist was not at the top of the list of doctrines to deliniate and that a consensus (of sorts) was reached before the matter got confrontational? Further, I note that no eucumenical council took on the task of clarifying the issue of Petrine supremacy…yet various views regarding the importance of the bishop of Rome persist to this day. Garry Wills in Why I Am A Catholic summarizes some of the conflict that existed regarding this issue (Chapter 8)…yet, for whatever reason, no ecumenical council settled the issue. Rome occassionally asserted its claim and the east occasionally denied it and each side kept to their own domain. (er, well apart from the occasional crusade)

If so, the game was already over by the beginning of the IV century, the supposed innovation had won.

I’d say the innovation had essentially taken the field by mid fifth century, b/c as you know, I don’t see Augustine as holding to a real bodily presence.

We could start, for example, by exposing, a posteriori, the first of the ECFs who introduced this innovation within Christianity.

If I was to speculate wildly for the purpose of pointing a finger at some bit of extant history, I would lay the blame at Iggy’s unfortunate choice of words. I have already explained (in this thread) how I would interpret Ignatius’s letter. Unfortunately, for those inclined to be overly literal, Ignatius’s words could be understood in a real bodily presence sort of way. Given that and the prestige thrown to martyrs and one may just have the seeds of an unfortunate doctrine…all wild speculation on my part, of course.

From what region was it spread ?

Greece and Asia Minor?

In what regions did the orthodox view survive better, up to what time ?

Carthage for one. I have attempted to demonstrate Tertullian’s figurative understanding in this thread. I believe I can do something similar for Cyprian and from our previous thread you should know that I believe that Augustine did not believe in a RP. As such, it seems IMHO that there is a NRP line holding the fort in Carthage. Origen’s area would be another place to look.

Let’s keep in mind the inherent opposition between innovation and orthodoxy perceived in the ancient Church as well as later. Tradition and universality were seen as blueprints of orthodoxy.

There is so much I could say in response to this…but I’ll try to be brief. I note Cyprian addresses a variation with respect to the form of the Eucharist (the cup to include wine). Nicea also addresses a matter of form (bishops must be first in line). Tertullian is very figurative. Cyril is not. Variations did exist with regard to how the ECFs spoke of the eucharist and how it was practiced and we must decide how to best explain those variations. Is it that:
a) they all had the same view as to Jesus’s bodily presence, but they were only stressing different aspects/perspectives of the Eucharist; (if I’ve summarized your view correctly) or
b) they had different views as to Jesus’s bodily presence.
Looking at the words that the ECFs actually wrote, it seems to me that the obvious answer is (b). It seems that you think (b) is improbable b/c if variations existed, confrontation would be inevitable…and no record of such confrontation exists. Besides what I wrote above, it seems to me that one should be careful with such an argument from silence. Is this something that could have fallen into the “in non-essentials liberty” area? Can we be sure that we have the complete record, or is it possible that some confrontational bits have been expunged? Can we be sure that we have an accurate record, or is it possible that some confrontational bits have been edited in the writings that we do possess? Your argument assumes no expunging or editing on this matter occured, but it seems that the early and medieval church was not above doing such things. I don’t dwell on what could have been expunged or edited b/c it seems to be far too speculative an endeavour, but I think the possibility must be at least raised and acknowledged if we are to even consider your argument from the silence of the historical record.

 

[Radical]

Ok Radical - here goes - evidence of the early Church Fathers belief in the real presence in the Eucharist (curtesy of Patrick Madrid’s fine book, “Where is that in Tradition”). Frankly, this is just a sampling of many other similar quotes (I just don’t want to type more than this …

believe it or not I have seen all these quotes before…actually I think only Cyril’s is new to this thread, but google “real presence church fathers” and an abundance of RC sites appear listing these and numerous other quotes. I don’t deny that some ECFs believed in a real bodily presence, but I do deny that all did. Your mission, should you decide to accept, it would be to prove that all did…and you could start by addressing what I wrote about Tertullian.

Blessings.

 

[Radical]

Hi. Truly good to hear from you again.
what can I say? …I am a one trick pony. I seem to be off on a different tangent than most others on this thread…so starting a new one might not be a bad idea at all, but I think I only would be inclined to start if you were prepared to fully participate (and not just follow). The apologetics forum seemed a little more cordial so that might be worth considering, but I am not sure whether it is proper etiquette for me to initiate a possible confrontation on RC home soil (so to speak)…it was nice to be invited to explain myself the other time.
It would seem to me that it is quite likely that before Nicea people went around speaking the very same language concerning the divinity of Christ with radically different, even mutually exclusive understandings of it, and it took quite a few years and a determined emperor to call a council in order to settle the issue. Given that and the fact that the early church had bigger fish to fry, (such as gnosticism or Arianism) is it possible that the eucharist was not at the top of the list of doctrines to deliniate and that a consensus (of sorts) was reached before the matter got confrontational? Further, I note that no eucumenical council took on the task of clarifying the issue of Petrine supremacy…yet various views regarding the importance of the bishop of Rome persist to this day. Garry Wills in Why I Am A Catholic summarizes some of the conflict that existed regarding this issue (Chapter 8)…yet, for whatever reason, no ecumenical council settled the issue. Rome occassionally asserted its claim and the east occasionally denied it and each side kept to their own domain. (er, well apart from the occasional crusade)
I’d say the innovation had essentially taken the field by mid fifth century, b/c as you know, I don’t see Augustine as holding to a real bodily presence.
If I was to speculate wildly for the purpose of pointing a finger at some bit of extant history, I would lay the blame at Iggy’s unfortunate choice of words. I have already explained (in this thread) how I would interpret Ignatius’s letter. Unfortunately, for those inclined to be overly literal, Ignatius’s words could be understood in a real bodily presence sort of way. Given that and the prestige thrown to martyrs and one may just have the seeds of an unfortunate doctrine…all wild speculation on my part, of course.
Greece and Asia Minor?
Carthage for one. I have attempted to demonstrate Tertullian’s figurative understanding in this thread. I believe I can do something similar for Cyprian and from our previous thread you should know that I believe that Augustine did not believe in a RP. As such, it seems IMHO that there is a NRP line holding the fort in Carthage. Origen’s area would be another place to look.

There is so much I could say in response to this…but I’ll try to be brief. I note Cyprian addresses a variation with respect to the form of the Eucharist (the cup to include wine). Nicea also addresses a matter of form (bishops must be first in line). Tertullian is very figurative. Cyril is not. Variations did exist with regard to how the ECFs spoke of the eucharist and how it was practiced and we must decide how to best explain those variations. Is it that:
a) they all had the same view as to Jesus’s bodily presence, but they were only stressing different aspects/perspectives of the Eucharist; (if I’ve summarized your view correctly) or
b) they had different views as to Jesus’s bodily presence.
Looking at the words that the ECFs actually wrote, it seems to me that the obvious answer is (b). It seems that you think (b) is improbable b/c if variations existed, confrontation would be inevitable…and no record of such confrontation exists. Besides what I wrote above, it seems to me that one should be careful with such an argument from silence. Is this something that could have fallen into the “in non-essentials liberty” area? Can we be sure that we have the complete record, or is it possible that some confrontational bits have been lost or expunged? Can we be sure that we have an accurate record, or is it possible that some confrontational bits have been edited in the writings that we do possess? Your argument assumes no loosing, expunging or editing with respect to this matter occured, but it seems that the early and medieval church was not above doing such things. I don’t dwell on what could have been expunged or edited b/c it seems to be far too speculative an endeavour, but I think the possibility must be at least raised and acknowledged if we are to even consider your argument from the silence of the historical record.

 

[Radical]

Pneuma, I realized that I should have, in my last post to you, said:

Can we be sure that we have the complete record, or is it possible that some confrontational bits have been lost or expunged? Can we be sure that we have an accurate record, or is it possible that some confrontational bits have been edited in the writings that we do possess? Your argument assumes no loss, expunging or editing with respect to this matter occured, but it seems that the early and medieval church was not above doing such things.

…and apparently it is too late for corrections. Alas.

Cheers and Blessings.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

believe it or not I have seen all these quotes before…actually I think only Cyril’s is new to this thread, but google “real presence church fathers” and an abundance of RC sites appear listing these and numerous other quotes. I don’t deny that some ECFs believed in a real bodily presence, but I do deny that all did. Your mission, should you decide to accept, it would be to prove that all did…and you could start by addressing what I wrote about Tertullian.

**Hi Radical,

Don’t do that to Robbin :tsktsk:
You realize that it is impossible to prove that “all” ECFs believed in a real bodily presence. There was no questionnaire filled out nor did “all” of them write about it! Jesus believed in it, That is what the real Faith is based on. No majority of numbers could ever change the truth! It isn’t "important what the ECFs “believed”. What is important is that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine as He said He was. That can only happen IF the celebrant has real Apostolic succession! Which can only happen by him being a member of the real church established by Jesus not man!

God Bless.**

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Pneuma, I realized that I should have, in my last post to you, said:

Can we be sure that we have the complete record, or is it possible that some confrontational bits have been lost or expunged? Can we be sure that we have an accurate record, or is it possible that some confrontational bits have been edited in the writings that we do possess? Your argument assumes no loss, expunging or editing with respect to this matter occured, but it seems that the early and medieval church was not above doing such things.

…and apparently it is too late for corrections. Alas.

Cheers and Blessings.

**Hi Radical and Pneuma,

Could things like that really bother you guys? Things like that have never bothered me and when I read your concerns Radical they brought to mind this amonishment, repeated several times in scripture:

'But Jesus said, ‘Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’"Matthew 19:14

“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.” Mark 10:15

“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.” Luke 18:17

like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation…" 1 Peter 2:2

Beliefs can only be based on Faith. Faith that Jesus means what He commands us especially when it is repeated many times like “Eat my Body, Drink my Blood” It is like a professor who says “You might want to pay attention to this, you may see it again some time!”

OK Radical. Easy question It was 56F here in San Antonio, what was the temperature up there?

God Bless**

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Neither - spiritual presence.

**Hi Ben,

He is there spiritual when two or more gather in His name right Ben? Why then would He command that His Body and Blood be eaten? He could have easily said: “Eat this bread and drink this wine in rememberance of my body and blood” Alas, He didn’t so you would be wrong except not being a member of the real church that does have the real presence you are correct.
But, You can’t be saved unless you do eat His Flesh and Drink his blood as He commanded and that will require you to convert!
Yes,yYou are correct Protestants don’t have the real presense just a spiriture presense that quickly departs, and the HS never comes to take His place. But I think you already knew that in your heart of hearts!

God Bless **

 

[thirdn6]

So far, we have 30 and 6 on the poll.
I have a question for those who voted. But first, let me group these responders into two, Groups A and B.
What is the probability or possibility that one person in group B and another person in group A attend the same church?
Second question. (I will be assuming that some of you have children).
In a situation that you brought your children to church and asked you about the bread that they receive in the communion, how would you explain or respond to them if;

1. A person in group B whispers to a child of a person in group A (in the pew) that the bread is only symbolic, or vice versa?
2. A child of either group meets a Catholic friend and tell her that both A and B’s belief are wrong?

Would you tell them your own personal belief (since you don’t really know what your church teaches because it really depends on the previous or present pastor or anybody else’ interpretation) and must hold on to it?
Or would you tell them the truth that you are unsure (since you already know the teaching of the true Church at the back of your minds)?
Or tell them to stop questioning until they gets older and understand better?

But remember…Matthew 19:14 “But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.” DRB

Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is not only for some scholars or grown-ups but for the children too (and the weak).
The fulness of truth is in the Catholic Church and she always teach ‘for the common good’.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

So far, we have 30 and 6 on the poll.
I have a question for those who voted. But first, let me group these responders into two, Groups A and B.
What is the probability or possibility that one person in group B and another person in group A attend the same church?
Second question. (I will be assuming that some of you have children).
In a situation that you brought your children to church and asked you about the bread that they receive in the communion, how would you explain or respond to them if;

1. A person in group B whispers to a child of a person in group A (in the pew) that the bread is only symbolic, or vice versa?
2. A child of either group meets a Catholic friend and tell her that both A and B’s belief are wrong?

Would you tell them your own personal belief (since you don’t really know what your church teaches because it really depends on the previous or present pastor or anybody else’ interpretation) and must hold on to it?
Or would you tell them the truth that you are unsure (since you already know the teaching of the true Church at the back of your minds)?
Or tell them to stop questioning until they gets older and understand better?

But remember…Matthew 19:14 “But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.” DRB

Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is not only for some scholars or grown-ups but for the children too (and the weak).
The fulness of truth is in the Catholic Church and she always teach ‘for the common good’.

**
Hi Third,

You got that idea from my post #130, didn’t you?

Not being a Protestant I didn’t vote. Did you realize that even with the CC dogma. 56% of people who claim to be Catholic don’t believe in the real presense? See, the Devil even creeps into the real church members hearts and minds.
Thank Goodness the HS protects the CC from Satan’s permanent evil. With 2,000 years of History we know the truth. Unlike Protestant groups, who change their beliefs as often as I do my underwear! Errr, lets forget I said that! Anyway, we can win our people back one soul at a time and help the poor lost Protestants also become fully Christian! It only takes prayer!

Remember to pray for all lost souls regardless of denomination. I believe that even JW deserve redemption. JW beliefs have always “bothered” me. Even many Protestants don’t consider them christians. Kind of like how Catholics don’t consider Protestants fully christians. Anyway JW believe that only 144,000 virgins can be saved! Yet they recruit people into their cult and they aren’t virgins themselves. If you recruit someone, someone gets bumped out, right? And they claim 7,124,443 practicing members surely they have more than 144,000 virgins shouldn’t they stop recruiting. They have exceeded their goal!.

God Bless**:

 

[BMSODM]

Blessings all***

Im sorry I havent read every post in this thread but I feel the need to share what brought me back to the catholic church. As an ex protestant I can relate to this subject at hand. I recieved communion in both branches of christianity and I found that everytime I received communion in the protestant church I was left with an empty feeling. And beleive me when I say I was as devote a christian I ever saw. I did everything for God and God alone. I dont claim God isn’t working in the protestant body and I know there are many who love God with there all in that body but you are falling short…

The Eucharist started calling me a couple of years ago. I had an overwhelming desire to receive the Eucharist. I couldnt help wonder if it was the actuall Body and Blood. I couldn’t help wonder if it was what would I be missing. I rejected it over and over because I knew I had to be catholic to recieve it otherwise I would receive unworthily. But be catholic, no way I said. But over and over He called me. I decided to ask God to please protect me as I researched the RC, I asked please control my mind and a gave up my free will and ask that He an He alone would guide me as I walked through my research. I begged and begged that I would never offend Him and most certainly would never be decieved into leaving Him and the Truth.

As I researched I found now that I did it in total trust and unbias I couldnt beleive how much of the RC teaching were truth and how far the root went. It wasn’t a mere branch, it was the actual vine.

This is what sold me on the Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood…Paul says: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, **eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, **not discerning the Lord’s body.”

Amagine for a minute someone having a picture of the president and he took this picture and stabbed it serveral times. Would that person be tried and convicted and be put in prison for life for murder? I say no way, its just a symbol of the president how can he go to jail for murder if its just a symbol of a man?

So I ask you, how can someone be guilty of taking the Body and Blood unworthily if its not the actual Body and Blood? How can someone be guilty to the point of eternal damnation if its just a symbol of a man? If that was the case then everytime someone threw anything away with the Lords picture on it they would be guilty expecially if it had a symbol of His Blood on it.

Think about this and pray about this my brothers and sisters. I cant have His blood on my hands if its not His Blood can I? I certianly can’t be at risk of eternal hell for having His Blood on my hands if its just a symbol of His blood. Were is the Justice in that?

 

[Radical]

OK Radical. Easy question It was 56F here in San Antonio, what was the temperature up there?

IIRC yesterday was high -7C, low -19C.

Here is a simple question in return. If I said that it wasn’t nearly cold enough to plug in the block heater, would the typical fellow from San Antonio know what I was talking about?

God Bless

 

[With_Questions]

I couldn’t vote since there was not an option for “Don’t Know”.

 

[Radical]

Would you tell them your own personal belief (since you don’t really know what your church teaches because it really depends on the previous or present pastor or anybody else’ interpretation) and must hold on to it?

This seems mildly insulting. I make it my business to know exactly what my church believes on such a matter and no church that I attended ever flip-flopped on this issue or differed from my view. As such, I would tell my kid exactly what I believed

Or would you tell them the truth that you are unsure (since you already know the teaching of the true Church at the back of your minds)?

the truth would be that I am not unsure. I might explain to them the unfortunate view of certain Christian denominations …the view that Jesus is bodily present. I would, at the same time, explain that some of those denominations also possess the unfortunate view that they are the true church. In the process I would use scripture and history to demonstrate the error of those denominations…there is so much ammunition available for that purpose, the trick would be to keep the lesson short enough to not lose my child’s attention…after all, my child could see that it is just bread and wine and would likely start to think that a long winded explanation isn’t needed when the answer is so obvious.

Or tell them to stop questioning until they gets older and understand better?

nah,

 

[JonNC]

I used to be Lutheran until I started studying what the Catholic Church believes about itself (not what Prots think the Church teaches). I was amazed at the depth and breadth of the Catholic Faith. It was as if I spent years in Kindergarten without realizing there was more to learn. After that, there was no turning back. The idea of Christ mixed in with bread is pretty silly if you picture it

If a Lutheran pastor taught you that the body and blood are “mixed” with the bread and wine, he didn’t explain things well.
Even if one describes sacamental union as “in, with, and under”, it is not a mix, any more than Christ is a “mix” of divinity and humanity. As the Apology says, “…we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.”

BTW, the use of “prots” is permitted by the moderators, anymore than “cats” or “orts”.
Jon

 

[Robbinson]

Blessings all***

Im sorry I havent read every post in this thread but I feel the need to share what brought me back to the catholic church. As an ex protestant I can relate to this subject at hand. I recieved communion in both branches of christianity and I found that everytime I received communion in the protestant church I was left with an empty feeling. And beleive me when I say I was as devote a christian I ever saw. I did everything for God and God alone. I dont claim God isn’t working in the protestant body and I know there are many who love God with there all in that body but you are falling short…

The Eucharist started calling me a couple of years ago. I had an overwhelming desire to receive the Eucharist. I couldnt help wonder if it was the actuall Body and Blood. I couldn’t help wonder if it was what would I be missing. I rejected it over and over because I knew I had to be catholic to recieve it otherwise I would receive unworthily. But be catholic, no way I said. But over and over He called me. I decided to ask God to please protect me as I researched the RC, I asked please control my mind and a gave up my free will and ask that He an He alone would guide me as I walked through my research. I begged and begged that I would never offend Him and most certainly would never be decieved into leaving Him and the Truth.

As I researched I found now that I did it in total trust and unbias I couldnt beleive how much of the RC teaching were truth and how far the root went. It wasn’t a mere branch, it was the actual vine.

This is what sold me on the Eucharist being the actual Body and Blood…Paul says: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, **eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, **not discerning the Lord’s body.”

Amagine for a minute someone having a picture of the president and he took this picture and stabbed it serveral times. Would that person be tried and convicted and be put in prison for life for murder? I say no way, its just a symbol of the president how can he go to jail for murder if its just a symbol of a man?

So I ask you, how can someone be guilty of taking the Body and Blood unworthily if its not the actual Body and Blood? How can someone be guilty to the point of eternal damnation if its just a symbol of a man? If that was the case then everytime someone threw anything away with the Lords picture on it they would be guilty expecially if it had a symbol of His Blood on it.

Think about this and pray about this my brothers and sisters. I cant have His blood on my hands if its not His Blood can I? I certianly can’t be at risk of eternal hell for having His Blood on my hands if its just a symbol of His blood. Were is the Justice in that?

This is striking, this is exactly what has happened to me (a Protestant now swimming the Tiber) and it started with a strong urge to participate in the Eucharist and sacraments, followed by an intellectual journey which convinced me, scripturally, and doctrinally, of the teachings of the Church. I was literally drawn to this study by, I believe, by the Holy Spirit. Thanks for sharing this