Protestants: do you ever wish the Eucharist was more than just a symbol to you?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HeWillProvide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wina said:
It’s true and depends on the believer even for catholics some of them are not sure about it and still think that it’s just symbol.
Click to expand...
This is true and something I thought about adding to my original comment but by the time I got around to it it was too late to edit. I am glad someone brought it up though because it is a good point. You really can’t say, “Protestants deny the real presence” because of course there are those who do not. You also cannot say that “Catholics affirm the real presence” because of course there are some who do not. Sadly.

Of course you could always get into the whole, “well they are not really Catholic if they deny the Real Presence” which may very well be 🤷 but I will let someone else take that route.

God bless you
 
Why wouldn’t Jesus just say, “This represents my body” instead of “This is my body” to clarify for everyone (if you believe that the Eucharist is just a representation)? Why would he say, “This is my body” when (for those believe it is just a representation) it really is not his body?
For the record, I know it is his body truly.
 
*I believe in the real presence but not transubstantiation. That’s where many Protestants will differ from many Catholics. More than 50% of Catholics today do not believe in transubstantiation and see the bread and wine as symbols. A spiritual presence exists but not within the elements themselves. *
So, basically, would you say the “spiritual presence” of your communion service is no different than the spiritual presence when you simply gather for prayer and/or church service? Or does some sort of different spiritual presence occur? Does anything differentiate your communion service from your other worship? Or, basically, God is just present at all times?
 
. If the substance of bread and wine literally leave to make room for the body and blood of Christ then no substances of bread and wine should remain. But if you ask your priest this weekend if the wine still contains alcohol he will say yes. Likewise if you tell him you are a celiac he will tell you the host contains gluten. If that’s the case then transubstantiation has not taken place.

PEACE

Could you compare this other “spiritual transformation” to your example: how Jesus Christ should literally and truly be living IN us - how “Christ lives within me” - as in, really, IN us - but if you were to examine our physical body, we are still the same DNA, hair color, eye color, weight, height, etc. - yet Jesus is living IN us (hopefully!)
 
Hi Piper, You made a very good point about the Eucharist and the ones who left because of their unbelief or what ever reason after they herd him speak. It is a sacred mystery. I went to confession and communion tonight and there is a big change in me i feel so good to know Jesus and i can be one in the Eucharist. Every time it is like being reborn, renewed,built up and alive. Thank you Holy Father God for this wonderful gift of Love! God Bless Nancy
 
I don’t buy into ‘consubstantiation’ either. Rather, its by communing together in this meal, Jesus is with us and there is Grace associated with it.*

Is Jesus with us during this “communing together” in a different way than when we pray? Or is He with us “more” than normal during this “communing together”? Meaning, it just seems like this communing together is something special, something extra special in addition to “normal” prayer - if it wasn’t, why would He want us to do it? How is it different than just normal prayer?
 
Now I am going to answer the question posed in the title, theme of this thread.

come to think of it I have said this before, but not on this thread.

I was raised an Evangelical Protestant, in the very litteralistic so called “church of Christ”.

They taught that the Holy Eucharist “Lord’s Supper” was very important, so important that they took a whole 10 minutes away from the sermon to “observe” it every Sunday (and no other day) but like most Protestants they taught it was only symbolic and emphasized the remembrance part heavily. But they only remembered the death of Christ, and not his ressurection and his coming again in glory. They always sang sad, slow hymns “songs” before hand, and there was no joy in thier “observance”.

But at night I would lay in bed reading and meditateing on the only Bible permitted me the King James version.
And reading that Protestant Bible (they deny being Protestants, just the only Church containing the only Christians), with the clear teachings “This IS my body” and blood converted me to the Catholic church.

My studying the Bible which they claimed to follow alone and of course literally, made clear the hypocrasy in the denomination of my birth, because they picked and chose which scriptures to obey, and which to ignore.
 
I’m Catholic now, but used to be Protestant. When I was Protestant the issue of the Eucharist being Christ’s body and blood in a literal sense never occurred to me. For a start it just wasn’t preached about. Now that was a Presbyterian background with a Methodist trained preacher, and our tradition was to have communion only once every three months.

One thing I will say - we used to sing a hymn as part of it, entitled “Here Now O Lord, I See You Face to Face”, which is still one of the most moving songs I’ve heard. Yet in stanza five, there are the words, “Too soon we rise, the symbols disappear;” So it is clear what they believe about the elements of bread and wine - they’re just symbols.

SInce becoming Catholic I believe it is a means of grace, and take it as being more than a symbol. I believe Christ is present in the blessed bread and wine, but not a minute before. However I would not bother getting into a debate about transubstantiation or any other attempt to put a philosophical explanation on a spiritual concept.

Protestants on this site might be prepared to consider the symbolism or otherwise of the Eucharist, mainly because they’re interested enough to get onto a Catholic site in the first place. But for the vast majority of Protestants who never have any contact with the Catholic Church, I doubt if the reality of the Eucharist ever crosses their minds.
 
HI Piper, i would like to ask you this, You know in Rev. where it say’s about the man of perdition being set up in the Holy Place? Does that mean in Gods house? Could that mean when it say’s that the daily sacrifice will be taken away, that it will be people not believing in the real presence of Christ in the sacrifice of the Mass? IF so, it is already happening, and Christ is coming sooner then people think? Love of Christ Nancy
 
nancy_dalrymple said:
HI Piper, i would like to ask you this, You know in Rev. where it say’s about the man of perdition being set up in the Holy Place? Does that mean in Gods house? Could that mean when it say’s that the daily sacrifice will be taken away, that it will be people not believing in the real presence of Christ in the sacrifice of the Mass? IF so, it is already happening, and Christ is coming sooner then people think? Love of Christ Nancy
Click to expand...
Really to be honest Nancy I don’t have a clue, why not look it up in a Catholic Bible commentary.

Really I tend to shy away from the Book of Revelation, it is the most confusing book of the entire Bible. I really can’t fathom it at all.

I know that cults are based false interpretations on Revelation, and Daniel. the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Jehovah Witnesses.

Did you know Revelation just made it into the canon by the skin of it’s teeth the Fathers who set up the canon nearly rejected this book completely.
 
pipper said:
Really to be honest Nancy I don’t have a clue, why not look it up in a Catholic Bible commentary.

Really I tend to shy away from the Book of Revelation, it is the most confusing book of the entire Bible. I really can’t fathom it at all.

I know that cults are based false interpretations on Revelation, and Daniel. the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Jehovah Witnesses.

Did you know Revelation just made it into the canon by the skin of it’s teeth the Fathers who set up the canon nearly rejected this book completely.
Click to expand...
WOW That is realy sad,John was a prophet of Gods and his word should be as good as all the others, how can they pick and choose? I just dont understand the Faith. God Be with you Nancy:(
 
nancy_dalrymple said:
WOW That is realy sad,John was a prophet of Gods and his word should be as good as all the others, how can they pick and choose? I just dont understand the Faith. God Be with you Nancy:(
Click to expand...
The Fathers could and had to pick and chose, actually there were a lot of books that did not make it into the canon like the so called “gospel of Peter”, a lot of other “gospels” that were found to be uninspired, even a several “apocholypses” besides out book of Revelation.

They had to form the canon so we would know which books were inspired by God, and which books weren’t.
 
Ya’ll say John always explained himself, and yet in John 6 he didn’t, so you say we are to take it literal. But in Revelation 17:16 it says that the beast and the ten horns will hate the prostitute and will eat her flesh. This is symbolic. “Relates” because it is the same author. John 6:47 Jesus says he who believes has eternal life. That’s Important because in verse 35 Jesus said “he who comes to me will never go hungry” (this is eating) “He who believes in me will never be thirsty” (this is drinking). TO COME TO OUR LORD AND BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF THE CROSS UNTO SALVATION IS EATING AND DRINKING. He says so in verse 35. I had one person say to me thank God we don’t believe in this verse. OK so just throw away some verses to make a Doctrine. NOT GOOD! THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!!! Because the disciples said “what works can we do?” In vs. 29 Jesus said "believe in the one in whom God sent!!! Then in vs. 63 Jesus said these words of mine are SPIRITUAL NOT LITERAL. Can’t be both and so I choose to believe JESUS. When he had the Last Supper with His Disciples He ate to! He did not eat His own Flesh and Drink His own Blood, and He called it the Fruit of the vine. In other words grape juice or wine. Matthew 26:29 Jesus said FRUIT OF THE VINE. Why didn’t he just cut Himself and say drink? Why didn’t they set at the foot of the Cross and drink His blood? That is cannibalism! If you read your history without a bias opinion, that is exactly what the early Church was accused of, and they corrected people for saying this. Why did Jesus say those who ate the manna died and yet those who eat the Eucharist still die? Because He was talking SPIRITUAL and was saying all who come to Him and Believe in Him will not die SPIRITUALLY. Will not go to HELL if they come to Jesus and Believe. So to answer your question do I wish the Eucharist was more than symbolic? NO! Now if Jesus met what you say He means than yes! But He didn’t. I do however believe it is very Holy and is to be Highly exalted, because it is proclaiming the death of Christ to the world. It is a way for each generation to remember what Jesus did on the Cross. And I believe we are to repent of all sin before we partake. Here is where you don’t care what the Bible says again, ***PAUL SAID FOR EACH ONE TO EXAMINE THEIR OWN HEART AND JUDGE THEMSELVES (1 CORINTHIANS 11:31). But you say NO!!! You must go to a Priest. The Bible clearly says when you sin to go to GOD!!! OK! If you disregard scripture then you will not listen to me. ***I have all of Jesus. He is the Word and I have it in my heart, and in front of me. I am filled with the Holy Spirit and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. So I have all of God. The entire Trinity working in me through LOVE. God, Jesus Christ the Son of the Living and the Holy Spirit are LOVE. ***READ ACTS 15 ***very carefully. Some men even today try to tie a yoke around people’s neck, they frustrate God with their MADE UP RULES. God Bles
 
nancy_dalrymple said:
HI Piper, i would like to ask you this, You know in Rev. where it say’s about the man of perdition being set up in the Holy Place? Does that mean in Gods house? Could that mean when it say’s that the daily sacrifice will be taken away, that it will be people not believing in the real presence of Christ in the sacrifice of the Mass? IF so, it is already happening, and Christ is coming sooner then people think? Love of Christ Nancy
Click to expand...
I’m truly not trying to be mean, but that is clearly talking about Israel and the Temple being rebuilt. Not the Anti Christ going to Rome to the Vatican.
 
HeWillProvide said:
Why wouldn’t Jesus just say, “This represents my body” instead of “This is my body” to clarify for everyone (if you believe that the Eucharist is just a representation)? Why would he say, “This is my body” when (for those believe it is just a representation) it really is not his body?
For the record, I know it is his body truly.
Click to expand...
Read my long post!!! You crack me up. You get mad at Protestants for taking the Scriptures literal when the Bible says “Faith alone” and many other scriptures. And when you contridict the Bible you say “well we have our tradition” Like your Priest being forbidden to marry. OH BUT WHEN IT COME TO THINGS YOU WANT THE BIBLE TO BE LITERAL ABOUT YOU FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL. Just read the long post!!! God Bless
 
Dennis, it could not have been grape juice at the Holy Eucharist Jesus presided over and the reason is very simple for anyone with a rudementary understanding of science.

It was at the time of Passover,months after the harvest and the grape juice would have fermented long before, there was no way for grape juice to have escaped the God created process of fermentation. Fermentation is the process that happens after the yeasts naturely present on the skin of the grape reacts with the juice of the grape.

No-one would have even thought to try and prevent it before the American prohibition movement in the mid 19th century when all of a sudden wine was now considered taboo. The Methodist Dr. Welch of Welches grape juice invented a process of pasturising grape juice, and avoiding fermentation.

Before that happened all churches used real wine for thier communion services, even the Baptists and the “just Christians”.

Do you know that Jewish people drink real wine every sabbath as well as at their Passover Seders, five glasses I beleive it is. The Jewish people never have considered wine to be taboo or forbidden, and of course Jesus was a Jew himself, he turned water into wine, not grape juice.
 
denwiles said:
I’m truly not trying to be mean, but that is clearly talking about Israel and the Temple being rebuilt. Not the Anti Christ going to Rome to the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Thank You Den, I wasn’t suer so i asked and they dont believein DEN I absolutly cannot talk anymore I got to get some sliip can we start in the morning? I am so tired. God Bles You e-mail or go to my site. I keep falling asleep all the time Night Night" see you in the rmotning when the son shines bright I will be back tomorrow Love of Chrits Nancy
 
denwiles said:
I’m truly not trying to be mean, but that is clearly talking about Israel and the Temple being rebuilt. Not the Anti Christ going to Rome to the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Thank you because that is exactly what i wanted to know and you were swerable to give me answer and i appreciate Going to bed for real Night denwiles, your a nice person Talk topmorrow Godlovesyou2@tds.net
 
believe in the real presence but not transubstantiation. That’s where many Protestants will differ from many Catholics. More than 50% of Catholics today do not believe in transubstantiation and see the bread and wine as symbols. A spiritual presence exists but not within the elements themselves.
Click to expand...
I need to correct what I mean by “spiritual presence”. When one receives the Eucharist, they are receiving Christ… in the bread and wine, as his Body and Blood. How that happens, I don’t know, but in the context of the sacrament, it is so. It is not a purely physical act, though, it has a mystical or spiritual nature. I just don’t think a substantialist metaphysics like the Roman Catholics have is necessary, though I also won’t deny the possibility it is true.
It is something "spiritual" because it isn't understood by somebody who isn't thinking spiritually. It's entirely possible, too, that outside the Mystery/Sacrament the bread and wine is not body and blood. Some Anglo-Catholic Anglicans also wouldn't approve of Eucharistic Adoration for the same reason. Luther himself practiced Eucharistic Adoration, but also felt it shouldn't become divisive, but his views of the Eucharist were closer to Catholicism than Anglicanism or Orthodoxy.
 
denwiles said:
Read my long post!!! You crack me up. You get mad at Protestants for taking the Scriptures literal when the Bible says “Faith alone” and many other scriptures. And when you contridict the Bible you say “well we have our tradition” Like your Priest being forbidden to marry. OH BUT WHEN IT COME TO THINGS YOU WANT THE BIBLE TO BE LITERAL ABOUT YOU FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL. Just read the long post!!! God Bless
Click to expand...
That word “alone” wasn’t in the Scriptures, or wasn’t until Luther put it in. He actually added to the Scriptures to make his own point. Changing Scroptures to make a personal point is not exactly encouraged in the Scriptures themselves.

Paul’s point about faith has been distorted, to the point where some think that nothing else matters eg. the expectation of unity, the Lord’s Supper in its full context, Peter as the Rock on which the Church is built and the clear Petrine Supremacy if you want to examine the Scriptures in some depth, Apostolic authority and their ability to forgive and withold forgiveness for sins, and a number of other points.

Moreover the earliest Church didn’t even have the Bible as we know it today. They got along without it, so where did their authority come from?

Finally what’s the use of having a church if you’re not going to give it any authority?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top