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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SIA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show me one time where the word (to eat or chew, trogo) in the Greek is used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. If every time it is used in the bible and ancient literature it is used in a literal sense, we must use it that way in exegeting John 6. If it has never been used in the way that Protestants impose on John 6, then the figurative sense of eating flesh can not be possible.
 
Protestant101 said:
I didn’t “fail” to do anything. My only intention was to point out a phrase that you ignore in all your diatribe about The Lord’s Supper. But since you asked; the reason one would have to “answer for the body and the blood of Jesus” is if they partook of it unworthily. It is not just a “mere” symbol you refuse to acknowledge here; you refuse the “food” that God is offering in His Word; you ignore all the scripture references I gave above which show why Jesus used the symbolism of John 6.

I think that when some Catholics do their Mass, they do it “worthily” but that still does not mean that Jesus meant for us to literally eat Him FOR ANY REASON. There is plenty of Bible reason to see it otherwise.
Click to expand...
How can one partake of it unworthily if it is not really present? If it is a symbolic body and blood, how can it profaned? Some people get angry when others burn the flag, because of what it represents. They probably would not get as upset if they saw me crumple up a picture of the flag.

You are saying that eating the body and drinking the blood is a reference to integrating the scriptures. How can one do this in an “unworthy manner”. Are we not all unworthy to approach the scriptures? Do you not believe that we are made worthy by the blood of Christ? How, then,can one attempt to integrate the Scriptures “in an unworthy manner”?
 
BILL PICK said:
Show me one time where the word (to eat or chew, trogo) in the Greek is used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. If every time it is used in the bible and ancient literature it is used in a literal sense, we must use it that way in exegeting John 6. If it has never been used in the way that Protestants impose on John 6, then the figurative sense of eating flesh can not be possible.
Click to expand...
There are some figurative uses of this word in the secular literature. It is used to refer slander, calumny, and the destruction of one’s reputation. If it is applied figuratively according to the common usage of the time, then He is saying “unless you malign me viciously and publicly in front of the world then you have no life in you”. 😊
 
grampben said:
Hey RealCatholicgk,

**
Hi Gramps 👋**

I appreciate your posts, but on this sub-forum we should all be charitable.

**I am always charitable, Always! Gramps. **

What if I said to you that satan is hiding you from the truth?

**What if he was, and you refused to tell me? **

Such statements entice anger and make civil conservation almost impossible.
**

Protestant 101 and I have been doing quit well thank you! 😃 He know that I believe, and will not hesitate to tell him, that his cults beliefs are quacky and he also knows he is free to say the same about ours. 👍 But the difference being that he can’t support his things with truth whereas our church is based on Truth!

It it entices anger, maybe that is a good thing? I rather someone made me angry by telling me the truth than make me feel good while lying to me. But I think also you are entitled to your wrong opinion, if it works for you!😃

God Bless**.
Click to expand...
 
Realcatholicgk, if it’s opinion it can’t be right or wrong 😉

God bless.
 
grampben said:
Realcatholicgk, if it’s opinion it can’t be right or wrong 😉

God bless.

**Hi Gramps, 👋

Really? So if Protestant101 has an opinion that Jesus is not really in the Eucharist you think his opinion could be called “Right” ? :rolleyes:

You asked me :**
“What if I said to you that satan is hiding you from the truth?”

**

I answered: “What if he was, and you refused to tell me?”

My question still stands who would be being more charitable?

People often confuse Justice, Charity, Truth and replace them with False,Weak, Meek, Lies to provide the other person with a warm but false sense of self worth!

I love my Protestant friends too much to allow them to falsely believe that:
  1. They are saved!
  2. Their counterfeit church isn’t part of Satan’s plan for their damnation!
  3. That the Catholic church isn’t the only real church which Jesus established for our salvation.
Remember gramps, no matter how corrupted, distorted or wrong the teachings of their church might be it was counterfeited off of Jesus’ real church so some truth had to remain.
They know of Jesus and some distorted versions of his teachings we have to help them Know Jesus and the truth which is available for them. “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well”. Matthew 6:33

Redemption is avialable to them, just like it is to us!

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8

God Bless
**
Click to expand...
 
guanophore said:
In fact, Jesus was clear that the “flesh is of no avail”. This simply cannot be apprehended by the carnal mind of man. It is a profound spiritual mystery and it is useless to try to wrap one’s brain around it.

I would recommend that Protestant101 be commended to his heresy, Cinette. I say this because, of all the heresies, the one he has embraced is one of the least damaging of all. You can see that he has substituted the Bible for the Eucharist. This is all he really can do, because being separated from the Apostolic Succession, he cannot access the Eucharist. Under the circumstances, this is the next best thing! In reading his post, it is clear that he is totally in love with the word of God, and desires the same type of integration and unity with Scripture that we do with Jesus Himself. He considers the Bible his food,and takes his feeding seriously! Jesus said that the scriptures point to Him, and his devouring them may eventually bring Him to the Real Presence. But, in the meantime, at least he will be feeding on something that is meant to be for his benefit.
Click to expand...
Thank you Guanophore for expanding on my attempts to answer Protestant101. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and I totally agree with you that he is sincere and his love for the Word is deep. He is a serious Christian. Sometimes I confess I have lost patience with some of the posters but Protestant101 presents his beliefs so well that it was impossible to lose patience.

On Saturday morning at Mass the Priest announced that there was a little boy and his family in the front bench who was there to receive his first Holy Communion - the little boy was going away to boarding school in another province and the family wanted him to have his first Holy Communion before he left. Then the Priest came forward and told him a story.

I don’t think I can reproduce exactly how the Priest explained the flesh and blood but I remember that in the story someone asked but how can the Host (the Body)be replicated over and over again and all over the world and there was another question I do not remember but the Priest gave two images to the little boy - the person in the story went to the window and looked out at the field with its trees and sky and a few sheep and pointed out how the entire scene was reflected in his eye and the other image was when he took a framed mirror from the wall and threw it on the floor and it cracked into many little pieces. When he looked down in the mirror he could see many images of himself at the same time. It was a nice story which the little boy appreciated I am sure (I must get the entire story because it was so fitting)

God bless
Cinette:)
 
Hey, how can Anglicans not be Protestant?

They came about after England’s break with Catholicism, right?
 
Protestant101 said:
I didn’t “fail” to do anything. My only intention was to point out a phrase that you ignore in all your diatribe about The Lord’s Supper. But since you asked; the reason one would have to “answer for the body and the blood of Jesus” is if they partook of it unworthily. It is not just a “mere” symbol you refuse to acknowledge here; you refuse the “food” that God is offering in His Word; you ignore all the scripture references I gave above which show why Jesus used the symbolism of John 6.
Click to expand...
How can you eat and drink a mere symbol unworthily? You will only be unworthy of it, if it is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ.

Quite the contrary, we do not refuse the spiritual nourishment that one obtains from His Word in scripture. That is why at Sunday Mass we read great dollops of Scripture. One from the OT, one from Psalms, one from the Epistles and then the Gospel. We get fed on the Word of God more than you can imagine. Why shouldn’t we? The Bible is a Catholic Book.

It is your interpretation of John 6 that I am refusing because it is incorrect, not the spiritual nourishment from Scripture.

That is why you are much poorer. You have only Scripture while we have the Lord of Heaven and Earth himself, Jesus Christ our Lord - Body, Soul and Divinity
I think that when some Catholics do their Mass, they do it “worthily” but that still does not mean that Jesus meant for us to literally eat Him FOR ANY REASON. There is plenty of Bible reason to see it otherwise.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this is where you are completely wrong (which is understandable considering that is what your church would have taught you). Jesus DID INTEND for us to eat Him LITERALLY because HE SAID SO. You keep failing to see that, THAT HE SAID SO. HE SAID MY FLESH IS FOOD INDEED, MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. EVERYONE understood He was speaking literally that is why they left. If all we need is feed on the Word of God, HE WOULD HAVE SAID THAT.But search His words in the Gospels and you will not find that.
 
I can’t help but wonder if the traditional Protestant view of communion as strictly symbolic is just another way of repeating one of the oldest heresies: the denial of the humanity of Christ.

I’m sure there’s plenty of people on this board who would have a field day with the old addage the Catholocism is a religion of “rags, bones and ashes,” in other words “stuff.” It’s a great line to introduce shakey Christians to the concept of denying the material or metaphysical implications of our belief in the ultimate nature of God.

This is a little insane to me. After all, I always thought Jesus was the God-Man, the “Word in the Flesh,” and as He frequently reminded us, “the Son of Man.”

Of course, I suppose those who reject the Christian view of the Eucharist and the infusion of the Saviour in the elements, are also the same guys (or the ancestors) of those who destroyed the Icons in the Byzantine chruches (just like a vandal recently put graffiti on a statue of St. Joseph in one of our parishes here in the Harrisburg area last week).

I hope these people are therefore totally consistent: in other words, no pictures of Jesus knocking on the door in their churches or gathering the little children at his feet. The Iconoclasts certainly would have destroyed those pictures as “blasphemy.”

I’m sure there’s a goodly number of opponents to Christianity on this board who would have applauded the fall of the Byzantines, and the overwhelming victory of Islam, a victory that one commentator simply called a change of face or “dropping the mask” that so many Aryans wore with their view of Christ as less than divine (the other side of God-Man coin).

Islam certainly doesn’t accept the “God-Man” concept central to Christianity, and can’t conceive of God “lowering Himself” to become human or “sacrificing Himself” in humiliation.

And guess what? Even though the Koran talks more about Mary than the Gospels do, and even endorses the virgin birth, I bet Islamists don’t exactly like the idea of the Eucharist, which is a Sacrament with huge implications both metaphysically and spiritually.

In my view, a good many Protestants are about one step away from yielding to Islam, and don’t even know it. After all, if no sacrifice is necessary, and if real blood never spilled from the Saviour’s side, and if HIs blood wasn’t necessary to cleanse us from all sin and unrighteousness, then what’s the point of cerelbrating HIs victory both metaphysically and spiritually in the Eucharist?

I can’t help but wonder? In what way is communion devoid of RP anything less than a pseudo-sacrament stripped of its original meaning?
 
GKC said:
Depends on who you ask.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
Click to expand...
I think we can safely say that this is objective truth, so not dependent on who you ask.

The Anglican church is a protestant Church although some of them like to think they are catholic with a small c. But they are definitely not Catholic. High Anglicans like the Catholic look but that is as far as it gets. Doctrinally they are veering further and further away from Catholicism especially now with ordinained priesteses and activecly homosexual priests.

But what can you expect from a religion whose reason for inception was to legitimize an adulterous relationship.🤷
 
guanophore said:
I would recommend that Protestant101 be commended to his heresy, Cinette. I say this because, of all the heresies, the one he has embraced is one of the least damaging of all. You can see that he has substituted the Bible for the Eucharist. This is all he really can do, because being separated from the Apostolic Succession, he cannot access the Eucharist. Under the circumstances, this is the next best thing! In reading his post, it is clear that he is totally in love with the word of God, and desires the same type of integration and unity with Scripture that we do with Jesus Himself. He considers the Bible his food,and takes his feeding seriously! Jesus said that the scriptures point to Him, and his devouring them may eventually bring Him to the Real Presence. But, in the meantime, at least he will be feeding on something that is meant to be for his benefit.
Click to expand...
Very well said:thumbsup:
 
hughi said:
I can’t help but wonder if the traditional Protestant view of communion as strictly symbolic is just another way of repeating one of the oldest heresies: the denial of the humanity of Christ.

…
And guess what? Even though the Koran talks more about Mary than the Gospels do, and even endorses the virgin birth, I bet Islamists don’t exactly like the idea of the Eucharist, which is a Sacrament with huge implications both metaphysically and spiritually.
Click to expand...
Out of respect and in a spirit of fairness I believe it is important to make the distinction between Muslim and Islamist, Jihadists and Islamic Brotherhood because the last three are part of the fundamentalist/terrorist type. There are many good people in Islam who deserve our respect although we do not believe as they do.
 
CatherineofA said:
Hey, how can Anglicans not be Protestant?

They came about after England’s break with Catholicism, right?
Click to expand...
**Hi Catherine, 👋

Oh Anglicans are Protestants. They just don’t Know it! :rotfl:

They are known as the “great Pretenders” or as they like to think of themselves the 3rd arm of Catholicism.

They think they are Catholics who do not follow the Pope. We call them Protestant because they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus who say that His church had to follow the Pope!

Apostolicae Curae is the title of a papal bull, issued in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII, declaring all Anglican ordinations to be “absolutely null and utterly void”.

God Bless

**
 
hughi said:
Hi Hugh, 👋

…I’m sure there’s plenty of people on this board who would have a field day with the old addage the Catholocism is a religion of “rags, bones and ashes,” in other words “stuff.” It’s a great line to introduce shakey Christians to the concept of denying the material or metaphysical implications of our belief in the ultimate nature of God.

**God loved the use of symbolism and so did Jesus. The blood of lamb used over the doorways. Does anyone think it was needed for God to know where the Jews babies were? Or was it a symbol to them of God’s protection? Did Jesus need to spit and make mud to cure the blind man? Or was it to show us the need for sacramentals? In the Case of The Eucharist there is no symbolizm as we know and Protestants can’t understand because Satan denys them the ability to understand Jesus’ teachings that provide salvation. I mean why should he make counterfeit churches and allow the followers to recognize the truth? That would defeat his purpose of stealing souls from Jesus and retain them for himself! 👍 **

Of course, I suppose those who reject the Christian view of the Eucharist and the infusion of the Saviour in the elements, are also the same guys (or the ancestors) of those who destroyed the Icons in the Byzantine chruches (just like a vandal recently put graffiti on a statue of St. Joseph in one of our parishes here in the Harrisburg area last week).

**
Hugh, One small point. The Eucharist isn’t an “infusion of the Savior in the elements” It is the changing of the elements into the actual Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior. Whole and complete not as a part of the bread and wine. His body is given to us completely as the bread of life!

Very good post!👍

God Bless **
Click to expand...
 
Cinette said:
Out of respect and in a spirit of fairness I believe it is important to make the distinction between Muslim and Islamist, Jihadists and Islamic Brotherhood because the last three are part of the fundamentalist/terrorist type. There are many good people in Islam who deserve our respect although we do not believe as they do.

**
Hi Cinette, 👋

I never want to argue with you dear! Might I recommend you read more of and about the Quran, and its teachings.

The Qur’an says: “Fight and slay the pagans **[Christians] wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush” (Surah 9:5) "

The term Islam in the lexicon of the Arabs means ‘Submission’ to God." (Islam, Beliefs And Observances, Caesar E. Farah, p2-7, 26-35)

Don’t be fooled by the “tolerant” face of Muslims you meet in the Western world today. Islam has historically developed in four stages: 1. Evangelism. 2. Consolidation of power. 3. Revolution 4. Islamic State. Muslims would love to see Canada and the USA become Islamic states but are only at stage one: Evangelism! Islam has not changed its methods since Muhammad 1400 years ago. Muslims are tolerant, when they are powerless, but this veneer of toleration evaporates when an Islamic state is formed.

Like with Protestants, I do not advocate Hate, rather Love and most importantly “conversion”. All their souls depends on it. In the case of Muslims our very lives could depend on they converting to the real faith!

God Bless
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top