Protestants:Doesn't the Bible support the true presense?

[Realcatholicgk]

gk,
some protestants do not believe in the Real Presence. LCMS does. However , Others view this Sacrament as a symbol.

jean8

**Hi Jean,

I knew all that! I believe your group was founded in around 1932?" Do the real Lutherans all accept you into their false group? I know they don’t accept all of the false groups wanting to pretend to follow them as they pretend to follow Jesus.They have around 2,200 or more subdivisions. I never saw LCMS there are you a part of another larger group, or don’t they recognize you? It is really hard keeping tract of all the false believers. I find it an interesting hobby! To watch the corruption and distortion that Satan forms to me it is kind of like watching a spider consume a fly! Fascinating in a gross way!

There are 61,000 counterfeit Protestant groups with 1,375 different beliefs. That is in only 500 years. In 2,000 years there is still only one holy catholic and Apologetic church that all read the same scriptures at Mass every day of the year all over the earth. They all celebrate in the exact same way, by the Mass! Not socials, sing alongs, or potlucks! We go to mass and eat the Body and Drink the Blood of Christ and hear the Words of the prophets and Jesus. We all believe the same things. We have 212 “sects” that basically believe the same things and practice the true religion established by Jesus.

There are 2,200 different “Lutheran” groups None believe everythign the other 21,999 do So sad! So very sad! But that is How satan works. Divide and conquer.

61,000 differenty grouops way to go! :clapping: :clapping: 2021 is estimated as the 100,000 mark by some, I think you can do it sooner if you really try!

I have faith in the Protestant’s ability to get the truth wrong every time! And you seldom disappoint me nor the Devil!!

God Bless **

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Tom,
I found it here, paragraph 107.
usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
Jon

EXTRACT FOR VIEWING AND DISCUSSION: …
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church,** need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a …Lutheran Lord’s Supper.**

**
Hi JonC and tqualey,

Remember ~ When two or more are gathered in my name I shall be present? Jesus goes to protestant services! he may not approve of how they use their free will but some things thay do must please Him. His presence is spiritual. Of course Jesus can have a salvation-granting presence spiritually.
However he can only nurture our souls with his grace physically with His real presence in the Host and Blood that we consume as Catholics. No protestant can have that saving grace. The Lutheran Service is called the Last Supper isn’t it?

What does our Pope Think? The same as our church teaches and every true Catholic should believe ~ **

guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,2123195,00.html?

**
On 10 July 2007 a declaration approved by Pope Benedict XVI insisting Protestants were mere “ecclesial communities” and their ministers effectively phonies with no right to give communion.

The Pope’s old department, which issued the document, said its aim was to correct “erroneous or ambiguous” interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which ended in 1965. Quoting a text approved by the Council, it said: Protestant churches, “because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood”, had not “preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery”.

The declaration added: “It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.”

This is the reason I refer to the counterfeit denominations as groups Jesus established only one church. it is Catholic!

Protestants should not care what Catholics believe about them. And Catholics should never accept the false teachings of any Protestant group, or care what they believe about our faith. There should be acceptance that Catholics follow the real teachings of Jesus and Protestants decided within the past 500 years not to do that. They want to worship their bibles and insult Jesus’ real church while they pretend to be the real church. Through their false practices, they only give more power to the Devil!

How envious they must be of our church. I pray for the souls of all our Protestant brothers and sisters that they may become real Christians and true followers of Jesus and His correct teachings rather than their phony groups and false beliefs. God, in the name of Jesus I pray, hear my prayer!

God Bless**

 

[Realcatholicgk]

QUOTE=JonNC;4734788]Tom,
I found it here, paragraph 107.
usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
Jon
EXTRACT FOR VIEWING AND DISCUSSION: …
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church,** need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a …Lutheran Lord’s Supper.**

**

Hi JonC and tqualey,

Jon and Tom, Remember ~ When two or more are gathered in my name I shall be present! Of course, Jesus goes to Protestant services! I believe that Lutheran’s call their services the Lord’s Supper. Jesus may not approve of how they use their free will to disobey Him, but some things they do must please Him. I do believe that at all their functions His presence is spiritual. Of course, we all believe that Jesus can be a salvation-granting presence spiritually.

However, he can only physically nurture our souls with his grace in His real presence in the Host and Blood that we consume as Catholics. No Protestant receive that saving grace offered by the real catholic communion because of 1 Corinthians 11: 27 “Therefore, 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.”

What does our Pope think? The exact same thing as our church teaches and every Catholic must believe ~ **

guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,2123195,00.html?

**
On 10 July 2007 a declaration approved by Pope Benedict XVI insisting Protestants were mere “ecclesial communities” and their ministers effectively phonies with no right to give communion was published.

The Pope’s old department, which issued the document, said its aim was to correct “erroneous or ambiguous” interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which ended in 1965. Quoting a text approved by the Council, it said: Protestant churches, “because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood”, had not “preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery”.

The declaration added: “It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.”

This is the reason I refer to the counterfeit denominations as groups Jesus established only one church. it is Catholic!

Protestants should not care what Catholics believe about them. And Catholics should never accept the false teachings of any Protestant group, or care what they believe about our faith. There should be acceptance that Catholics follow the real teachings of Jesus and Protestants decided within the past 500 years not to do that. They want to worship their bibles and insult Jesus’ real church while they pretend to be the real church. Through their false practices, they only give more power to the Devil!

Some thing to thnk about: If Lutherans actually believed in the real presence they wouldn’t throw their left overs in the trash like aborted babies in an abortion clinic!

How envious Protestants must be of our church to attempt to imitate it. I pray for the souls of all our Protestant brothers and sisters that they may become real Christians and true followers of Jesus and His correct teachings rather than their phony groups and false beliefs. God, in the name of Jesus I pray, hear my prayer!

God Bless**

 

[Realcatholicgk]

I don’t know.

It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

**

Hi With,

Poster tqualey has a dictionary. Tom can even tell you how to spell words. That is an inside joke, he corrects my spelling, not realizing that it is my fingers that actually need correcting most times

Anyway, are you ready for my answer to your remark?

V

V

It is what it is!



God Bless**

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

**Hi nancy,

Nancy, Nancy Nancy, why do I wish your name was Stella? Very nice words. However sweetheart, they can’t come close to saving your soul! It is an outward sign of our salvation Period! Sigh,and you were doing so good! Then you stumbled on your Protestant Lies! “…is prayed over to represent the Body of Christ(Christos)” and " It’s an outward sign of beleiving, remembering, and fellowship"

Our Lord and Savior explained that it “is His Body” not represents His body! He stated it was “His Blood” not the blood of grapes! “That is biblical.” We eat the Bread/Host which is His Body and we drink His Blood which previously was the fermented juice of grapes until the Priest changed them both into Jesus’ Body and Blood!

Jesus cautioned that if you call Him a liar and do not believe Him you can not obtain eternal life. He stated that your spirit is dead!That being said however, I must agree with the Protestants that state that Jesus is not physically present at their services**. They are correct!

The Blessed sacrament is a paradosis that Jesus handed down only to his followers. He instituted it at the Last Supper. He is the one who set it up so that it would reflect the unity in the church that He established. Without the real presense there is no real church, so I must agree with the Protestants that say, in their case, it is only a symbol. Their entire belife system is only a counterfeit representation of the real church anyway! With imitation beliefs and practices :bighanky: ~ Poor Protestants.

Do you know why we call the bread a "Host”? The term, used to refer to the consecrated bread, comes from the Latin word hostia, which means ‘victim’.

Jesus Christ is really present in the consecrated bread and wine on our altars. The Mass is a re-presentation of the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. We are joined with Him at His death. Therefore, Jesus is the victim of sacrifice and we call the bread the host/victim to help us remember that it is no longer bread but the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ given to us to strengthen and help us on the journey to Heaven.

I pray that every Protestant gets to partake in the real body and blood of christ. We can’t permit you to take our communion. Do you even know why?

Since, many Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as we do, and they do not discern or recognize that Jesus’ body is present under the appearance of bread and wine. We would be allowing them to eat and drink judgment upon themselves. The prohibtion is actually very charitable but, unfortunately, it is usually seen as a rejection.
Evidence of this interpretation of this passage is supported by St. Justin the Martyr :“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…” -Justin Martyr -FIRST APOLOGY, 66,20–(150 A.D.)

You can believe what you want, that is called free will. But if you don’t believe the real, uncorrupted, undistorted teachings of Jesus’ one holy and apolostic church, you would damn yourselves by receiving His Body and Blood in an unworthy manner.

God Bless

Remember I told you that yes I beleive he is there in Spirit,not in flesh then that would be cannabelism I asked a few Catholic and they say in Spirit only love you Nancy P S it doesn"t sound Christain to eat flesh raw,think about it.

 

[NDfan]

**
My fellow posters,

I don’t think we explored the subject of the true presense in the Bread and Wine enough bacause for some strange reason Protestants and others still can not see the truth as Jesus taught in the Scriptures.

So my question is: Protestants: Doesn’t the Bible support the the presense?

What do you think?**

Realcatholic this topic seems to be getting discussed on several threads. So I’ll say what I said there. I believe in the real presence just not transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is not even valid and if your interested I’ll explain why.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Realcatholic this topic seems to be getting discussed on several threads. So I’ll say what I said there. I believe in the real presence just not transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is not even valid and if your interested I’ll explain why.

please explain to him,he realy is confused Nancy

 

[NDfan]

please explain to him,he realy is confused Nancy

Nancy sure I’ll explain. At the Council of Trent it was declared that the whole substance of the bread and wine upon consecration ceased to exist and became literally the flesh and blood of Christ. This was referred to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is borrowed from Greek Philosophy more specifically Aristotelian physics. Aristotle explained that material consisted of 2 things. Substance which is what it’s actually made out of and the accidents which is what the outward appearance is. Things that your senses pick up on. So for instance if we look at wine the substance is grapes, alcohol, sugar, tannins etc. etc. The accidents would be the color red for the appearance, the smell of grapes, the taste of wine etc. etc.

Well what the church affirmed was that the substance which is the alcohol, the grapes etc. ceased to exist after consecration and were now the substance of Christ’s precious blood. The same for the bread. The yeast, the wheat, the salt etc. which are substances of bread ceased to exist after consecration and became Christ’s flesh.

Initially there were those that refuted the teaching referencing the physics argument. This basically states that the accidents of an element have to have something to inhere to. Whatever the substance is the accidents will inhere to that. In the case of consecration the argument was that if the substance changed to flesh and blood then the accidents would have to change also to reflect the substance. That now the accidents would have to be those of flesh and blood. Thomas Aquinas who was familiar with physics stated that the accidents did not change after consecration but remained as those of bread and wine. So the question then presented to Aquinas was how can the flesh and blood of Christ have the accidents of bread and wine without being bread and wine. Aquinas responded and basically said it doesn’t, the accidents of the bread and wine are held through a miracle.

Now here is the problem. If the substance really changes then someone who has an alcohol dependency should not have to worry about drinking the wine because they are not drinking wine. They are drinking blood. The same with the bread. If someone had a deadly allergy to wheat and ate the bread they would not have to worry because they are eating flesh. Well the church has refuted this and maintains that the elements or substance of the bread and wine remain. This is a direct contradiction to what the Council of Trent taught and what Thomas Aquinas argued. If the elements of the bread and wine remain then the church is not teaching transubstantiation and all you are left with is physical bread and wine. To take it a step further if the church affirms that Christ is in the bread along with the bread and HIS blood is in the wine along with the wine then you have what Martin Luther taught which is called consubstantiation. Although I don’t believe the word consubstantiation is in the Augsberg confession of Faith. But the description is.

Well now this presents a major problem for the church that for some reason Roman Catholics are just not getting. I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way but the church practices adoration of the bread because they see it as the physical body of Christ when it isn’t. They store it in the tabernacle and genuflect to it. etc. etc. But the bottom line is the church admits it’s bread.

One last point, in the early 20th century some Roman Scholars interpreted Communion slightly different than transubstantiation. They maintained that we need to focus on the “meaning” of the supper and not so much the change in elements. Defining that when you partake in the supper what is the “meaning” of it. This represented a purely symbolic view of the Eucharist. Well in 1965, Paul the VI decided to retain the original dogma issuing the Mysterium Fidei or mystery of faith. He claimed there was no reason to change the deposit of faith on this matter.

The church does have its hands full with this doctrine though. A poll of Roman Catholics revealed that only 30% believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The remaining saw it as symbolic. Sacred but symbolic.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Nancy sure I’ll explain. At the Council of Trent it was declared that the whole substance of the bread and wine upon consecration ceased to exist and became literally the flesh and blood of Christ. This was referred to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is borrowed from Greek Philosophy more specifically Aristotelian physics. Aristotle explained that material consisted of 2 things. Substance which is what it’s actually made out of and the accidents which is what the outward appearance is. Things that your senses pick up on. So for instance if we look at wine the substance is grapes, alcohol, sugar, tannins etc. etc. The accidents would be the color red for the appearance, the smell of grapes, the taste of wine etc. etc.

Well what the church affirmed was that the substance which is the alcohol, the grapes etc. ceased to exist after consecration and were now the substance of Christ’s precious blood. The same for the bread. The yeast, the wheat, the salt etc. which are substances of bread ceased to exist after consecration and became Christ’s flesh.

Initially there were those that refuted the teaching referencing the physics argument. This basically states that the accidents of an element have to have something to inhere to. Whatever the substance is the accidents will inhere to that. In the case of consecration the argument was that if the substance changed to flesh and blood then the accidents would have to change also to reflect the substance. That now the accidents would have to be those of flesh and blood. Thomas Aquinas who was familiar with physics stated that the accidents did not change after consecration but remained as those of bread and wine. So the question then presented to Aquinas was how can the flesh and blood of Christ have the accidents of bread and wine without being bread and wine. Aquinas responded and basically said it doesn’t, the accidents of the bread and wine are held through a miracle.

Now here is the problem. If the substance really changes then someone who has an alcohol dependency should not have to worry about drinking the wine because they are not drinking wine. They are drinking blood. The same with the bread. If someone had a deadly allergy to wheat and ate the bread they would not have to worry because they are eating flesh. Well the church has refuted this and maintains that the elements or substance of the bread and wine remain. This is a direct contradiction to what the Council of Trent taught and what Thomas Aquinas argued. If the elements of the bread and wine remain then the church is not teaching transubstantiation and all you are left with is physical bread and wine. To take it a step further if the church affirms that Christ is in the bread along with the bread and HIS blood is in the wine along with the wine then you have what Martin Luther taught which is called consubstantiation. Although I don’t believe the word consubstantiation is in the Augsberg confession of Faith. But the description is.

Well now this presents a major problem for the church that for some reason Roman Catholics are just not getting. I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way but the church practices adoration of the bread because they see it as the physical body of Christ when it isn’t. They store it in the tabernacle and genuflect to it. etc. etc. But the bottom line is the church admits it’s bread.

One last point, in the early 20th century some Roman Scholars interpreted Communion slightly different than transubstantiation. They maintained that we need to focus on the “meaning” of the supper and not so much the change in elements. Defining that when you partake in the supper what is the “meaning” of it. This represented a purely symbolic view of the Eucharist. Well in 1965, Paul the VI decided to retain the original dogma issuing the Mysterium Fidei or mystery of faith. He claimed there was no reason to change the deposit of faith on this matter.

The church does have its hands full with this doctrine though. A poll of Roman Catholics revealed that only 30% believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The remaining saw it as symbolic. Sacred but symbolic.

You are missing the point. Just like the resurrection, heaven, the virgin birth, etc., the transformation of the Eucharist is a matter of faith.

Why do you suppose it is more rational to believe that the word became flesh than that the bread can become flesh?

Here’s what the Church says on this mystery:

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” **The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; **they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.155

 

[ncgolf]

Now here is the problem. If the substance really changes then someone who has an alcohol dependency should not have to worry about drinking the wine because they are not drinking wine. They are drinking blood. The same with the bread. If someone had a deadly allergy to wheat and ate the bread they would not have to worry because they are eating flesh. Well the church has refuted this and maintains that the elements or substance of the bread and wine remain. This is a direct contradiction to what the Council of Trent taught and what Thomas Aquinas argued. If the elements of the bread and wine remain then the church is not teaching transubstantiation and all you are left with is physical bread and wine. To take it a step further if the church affirms that Christ is in the bread along with the bread and HIS blood is in the wine along with the wine then you have what Martin Luther taught which is called consubstantiation. Although I don’t believe the word consubstantiation is in the Augsberg confession of Faith. But the description is.

From John Young,

“The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change: we know it only by faith in God’s word.”
and later …
“Berkhof asserts that it is a violation of what the senses show to be asked to accept that what tastes and looks like bread and wine is really flesh and blood. But what are we tasting and seeing? The accidents of bread and wine which remain after the consecration. They have not changed, and they taste and look as they did before the consecration. There is no denial of what the senses show.”

Any quality that can be perceived is an accident … so the alcohol content and the glutin that affects some are still perceived.

From the website therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/transubstantiation.htm

 

[tqualey]

Hi NDfan,

Maybe Nancy deserves an answer from the Catholic Church concerning the Real Presence. Actually, NDfan, maybe you’d like to read this, too. Here is the link:

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

I really would be interested in knowing what reference was used specific to the Council of Trent’s Doctrine of Transcubstantian having been now rendered null and void.

And … a reference on this quoted poll where 60% DO NOT believe in the Real Presence would be nice, too.

Now here is the problem. If the substance really changes then someone who has an alcohol dependency should not have to worry about drinking the wine because they are not drinking wine. They are drinking blood. The same with the bread. If someone had a deadly allergy to wheat and ate the bread they would not have to worry because they are eating flesh. Well the church has refuted this and maintains that the elements or substance of the bread and wine remain. This is a direct contradiction to what the Council of Trent taught and what Thomas Aquinas argued. If the elements of the bread and wine remain then the church is not teaching transubstantiation and all you are left with is physical bread and wine. To take it a step further if the church affirms that Christ is in the bread along with the bread and HIS blood is in the wine along with the wine then you have what Martin Luther taught which is called consubstantiation. Although I don’t believe the word consubstantiation is in the Augsberg confession of Faith. But the description is.

{…snip…

The church does have its hands full with this doctrine though. A poll of Roman Catholics revealed that only 30% believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The remaining saw it as symbolic. Sacred but symbolic.

God bless

 

[NDfan]

You are missing the point. Just like the resurrection, heaven, the virgin birth, etc., the transformation of the Eucharist is a matter of faith.

Why do you suppose it is more rational to believe that the word became flesh than that the bread can become flesh?

Chester I’m not missing any point. I don’t deny that Christ can do anything. If HE wants to become bread HE can. But it certainly is not at the command of the Priest.

The point you are missing is that the church is not practicing what the church thinks it’s teaching and preaching.

Here’s what the Church says on this mystery:

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” **The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; **they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.155

I’m familiar with this Chester. Again you are missing the point. The church is claiming the substance ceases to exist and what’s left are the true body and blood of Christ. That’s transubstantiation. You can’t sugar coat it and say it’s not understandable. The church is not supporting what they are preaching happens. Either the bread literally changes to the body or it doesn’t. I have no problem if it does. That’s not the point I was making.

Let me ask you this quite frankly. If I am an alcoholic and cannot drink wine at all because it is a trigger for me, then can I drink from the cup and not worry about actually drinking alcohol? Or does the alcohol still remain? Please just answer this question and stop throwing catechisms at me and statements that I am missing the point. I grew up Catholic for over 40 years. I’m familiar with everything you are saying.

 

[Hisalone]

You are missing the point. Just like the resurrection, heaven, the virgin birth, etc., the transformation of the Eucharist is a matter of faith.

Why do you suppose it is more rational to believe that the word became flesh than that the bread can become flesh?

Here’s what the Church says on this mystery:

155

Your position would be a lot stronger IMHO if you left it at a mystery and did not try to explain it.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Remember I told you that yes I believe he is there in Spirit,not in flesh then that would be cannabelism**

Hi Nancy,

Sweetheart, Jesus can preform miracles. He doesn’t change the bread from bread. He changes His flesh into the bread! The same with the Wine.It is a miracle not a magic trick. It can’t be explained but it better be believed! Your very salvation may depend on it happening and you believing in it! As I said above, our Lord and Savior explained that it “is His Body” not represents His body! He stated it was “His Blood” not the blood of grapes! “That is biblical.” We eat the Bread/Host which is His Body and we drink His Blood which previously was the fermented juice of grapes until the Priest changed them both into Jesus’ Body and Blood! **

I asked a few Catholic and they say in Spirit only

**Guess what Nancy! They aren’t Catholics! The foolishly believe that they are following jesus’ tweachings and they don’t! They are just as lost as Protestants. We know that satan also works in the Real Church. He can be conquered and controlled because of the Holy Spirit but never eliminated.
To be a Catholic you MUST believe! It is not debatable nor is it decided by individual choice. There are 56% of people who wrongly identify themselves as Catholics when they posess false and counterfeit type Protestant beliefs. They probably will go to hell with the rest of Satan’s children.

The Protestants who actually believe in the real presence should convert and actually be able to eat Jesus’ Body and drink His blood as He commanded for eternal life.**

love you Nancy

P S it doesn"t sound Christain to eat flesh raw,
think about it.
**

It is “Christian” to Eat Jesus Body and Drink His Blood. He did not pick up a peice of raw meat and say “This is My body!” Did he? You better think about it sweetheart. Your soul may depend on your trusting in Jesus rather than some counterfeit beliefs! The real presence is what makes Catholics real Christians and prevents Protestants from ever being christians more than any other thing in the 1,375 false beliefs that Protestant groups attempt to believe in against jesus’ real teachings.

Jesus cautioned that if you call Him a liar and do not believe Him you can not obtain eternal life. He stated that your spirit is dead!That being said however, I must agree with the Protestants that state that Jesus is not physically present at their services. They are correct! May God have mercy on their souls! **

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Your position would be a lot stronger IMHO if you left it at a mystery and did not try to explain it.

The mystery is only related to our understanding.

What is actually happening was explained by Jesus.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

The declaration added: “It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.”

This is the reason I refer to the counterfeit denominations as groups Jesus established only one church. it is Catholic!

Protestants should not care what Catholics believe about them. And Catholics should never accept the false teachings of any Protestant group, or care what they believe about our faith. There should be acceptance that Catholics follow the real teachings of Jesus and Protestants decided within the past 500 years not to do that. They want to worship their bibles and insult Jesus’ real church while they pretend to be the real church. Through their false practices, they only give more power to the Devil!

Some thing to thnk about: If Lutherans actually believed in the real presence they wouldn’t throw their left overs in the trash like aborted babies in an abortion clinic!

How envious Protestants must be of our church to attempt to imitate it. I pray for the souls of all our Protestant brothers and sisters that they may become real Christians and true followers of Jesus and His correct teachings rather than their phony groups and false beliefs. God, in the name of Jesus I pray, hear my prayer!

God Bless

Are you serious? I mean, really, are you serious?

 

[NDfan]

From John Young,

“The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change: we know it only by faith in God’s word.”
and later …
“Berkhof asserts that it is a violation of what the senses show to be asked to accept that what tastes and looks like bread and wine is really flesh and blood. But what are we tasting and seeing? The accidents of bread and wine which remain after the consecration. They have not changed, and they taste and look as they did before the consecration. There is no denial of what the senses show.”

Any quality that can be perceived is an accident … so the alcohol content and the glutin that affects some are still perceived.

From the website therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/transubstantiation.htm

Ncgolf again I’m familiar with all the quotes you are referencing and all the arguments made. It’s quite easy to just sit back and say it’s a mystery, or that’s it’s a miracle. But that doesn’t cut it sorry. I mean no disrespect here.

But let’s go back and look at what Young states. He states exactly what I stated with regard to transubstantiation. That the substance changes but the accidents are left alone. This according to Aquinas happens by a miracle. That’s why we still taste bread, smell bread, see bread, taste wine, smell wine etc. etc. etc. I already confirmed this in my previous post. Don’t throw quotes from other sources as if you just proved something to me. I already stated what they stated.

So I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Chester. If I have an addiction to alcohol and wine is a trigger for me. Or if I have a deadly allergy to wheat can I still drink from the cup and eat the bread with no recourse?

Berkhof is flat out wrong. The accidents of bread do not contain gluten. Gluten is in the substance. Your senses may be tasting gluten but you are not ingesting gluten so the effects cannot be there. The same for wine. You may be tasting alcohol but you are not ingesting alcohol. Alcohol is not in the accidents. It’s in the substance. So therefore you cannot possibly get drunk or feel the effects of alcohol. That’s how ridiculous this teaching is and how ridiculous their explanations are. They don’t even understand the basics of physics.

If someone shoots a bullet at you and Jesus changes the substance of the bullet to powder will you still die? Let’s say Jesus keeps the accidents in tact but the substance is still powder. Hmm, the bullet hits you, it feels like a bullet, sounds like a bullet, but the substance is not a bullet. According to Berkhof you would still die because your brain tells you it’s a bullet. Even though it isn’t. So Berkhof’s assertion is that the brain would overtake and force the body to feel the effects of a bullet even though it’s only powder that just hit you.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Ncgolf again I’m familiar with all the quotes you are referencing and all the arguments made. It’s quite easy to just sit back and say it’s a mystery, or that’s it’s a miracle. But that doesn’t cut it sorry. I mean no disrespect here.

But let’s go back and look at what Young states. He states exactly what I stated with regard to transubstantiation. That the substance changes but the accidents are left alone. This according to Aquinas happens by a miracle. That’s why we still taste bread, smell bread, see bread, taste wine, smell wine etc. etc. etc. I already confirmed this in my previous post. Don’t throw quotes from other sources as if you just proved something to me. I already stated what they stated.

So I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Chester. If I have an addiction to alcohol and wine is a trigger for me. Or if I have a deadly allergy to wheat can I still drink from the cup and eat the bread with no recourse?

Berkhof is flat out wrong. The accidents of bread do not contain gluten. Gluten is in the substance. Your senses may be tasting gluten but you are not ingesting gluten so the effects cannot be there. The same for wine. You may be tasting alcohol but you are not ingesting alcohol. Alcohol is not in the accidents. It’s in the substance. So therefore you cannot possibly get drunk or feel the effects of alcohol. That’s how ridiculous this teaching is and how ridiculous their explanations are. They don’t even understand the basics of physics.

If someone shoots a bullet at you and Jesus changes the substance of the bullet to powder will you still die? Let’s say Jesus keeps the accidents in tact but the substance is still powder. Hmm, the bullet hits you, it feels like a bullet, sounds like a bullet, but the substance is not a bullet. According to Berkhof you would still die because your brain tells you it’s a bullet. Even though it isn’t. So Berkhof’s assertion is that the brain would overtake and force the body to feel the effects of a bullet even though it’s only powder that just hit you.

The problem is, you want the mystery of the Eucharist to be rationally understandable.

Christianity is not rational.

Our rational minds cannot fathom a man dying, going to hades, then rising again three days later.

Our rational minds cannot fathom a virgin birth with no earthly father.

Our rational minds cannot fathom staffs turning into snakes.

These are miracles.

You either accept them or reject them.

What we can comprehend is God working in our lives. We can trust him to give us the gift of faith. We will not be granted the gift of understanding with regard to these matters.

 

[NDfan]

Hi NDfan,

Maybe Nancy deserves an answer from the Catholic Church concerning the Real Presence. Actually, NDfan, maybe you’d like to read this, too. Here is the link:

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Sighs. Tom no disrespect brother but again not to beat a dead horse, I spent over 40 years in the Catholic church so please don’t throw the new advent link at me.

I understand completely what the teaching is.

I really would be interested in knowing what reference was used specific to the Council of Trent’s Doctrine of Transcubstantian having been now rendered null and void.

I never said it was rendered null and void. The council at Trent defined the dogma of the Lord’s supper as the following:

The Council of Trent defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the** whole** substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”,

This is taken right from the thirteenth session of the council.

So the council admits that only the species remains. Species is also the accidents. The outward elements that the senses pick up on. But the underlying substance is changed. So you no longer have bread you have flesh, and you no longer have wine you have blood.

Aquinas cleared up the objections to this because those that were knowledgeable of physics objected that the species could not be that of bread and wine if the substance changes. The accidents have to inhere to something. Aquinas responded by saying it was a miracle. I have no problem with this at all.

What I have a problem with is the church admits that the substance of bread and wine are still intact. Point in fact if you tell a Priest that you have an alcohol dependency and wine is a trigger for you he would say do not partake in the cup. The RC flat out admits that there is still wine in the glass. If that’s the case then it’s not transubstantiation so the church might as well just admit to it.

And … a reference on this quoted poll where 60% DO NOT believe in the Real Presence would be nice, too.

It’s not 60% it’s like 70% that don’t believe. And don’t confuse real presence with transubstantiation. They’re not the same. I believe in the real presence just not transubstantiation. I’ll try to find the source for you. It was a religious poll conducted.

GOD Bless you too.

 

[tqualey]

Hi NDfan,

Actually, I thought Chester gave an excellent answer.

Now, let’s see…

First thing: The Priest does not ‘command’ Christ. The command comes from Christ. ** “…do this in rememberance of me…” ( Luke 22:19 )**
From the Catechism of Catholic Church:

1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that through all the works of Christian men they may offer spiritual sacrifices."9 This “common priesthood” is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people,” have a right and an obligation by reason of their Baptism.

**1142 ** But “the members do not all have the same function.” Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church. The ordained minister is, as it were, an “icon” of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the Eucharist that the bishop’s ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion with him, the ministry of priests and deacons.

The priest takes Christ’s place during the Consecration of common bread and wine into the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I don’t deny that Christ can do anything. If HE wants to become bread HE can. But it certainly is not at the command of the Priest.

The point you are missing is that the church is not practicing what the church thinks it’s teaching and preaching.

.

These are basically unsubstantiated statements. You offer no referece that backs up this statement. The reference you provided does not support your case.

Either the bread literally changes to the body or it doesn’t. I have no problem if it does.

I will take you at your word, in that you have no problem if the Consecrated Bread is ACTUALLY (not symbolically) the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Let me ask you this quite frankly. If I am an alcoholic and cannot drink wine at all because it is a trigger for me, then can I drink from the cup and not worry about actually drinking alcohol? Or does the alcohol still remain? Please just answer this question and stop throwing catechisms at me and statements that I am missing the point. I grew up Catholic for over 40 years. I’m familiar with everything you are saying.

From my appreciation of your statement, you may be ‘familiar’ but you need to work on some depth here. The crux of the issue is in distinguishing Essence from Accident. Anything that appeals to the senses is an Accident.

Someone with an allergy to wine or wheat can not become a Priest! Why? Becuase their health condition directly impacts on their ability to celebrate the core Sacrament of the Catholic Church: the Eucharist. An allergy is just one (admittedly not a common one) example of an Accident.

My essence is unchanged if I were to lose an arm, both arms, a leg, both legs, hearing, seeing, etc. These are just reductions in my physical attributes - not my essence: that which really makes me, me. Death will not change my essence - only free me from my ‘mortal coil’. Where my essence will be changed is (hopefully) when I meet Jesus Christ and am invited to join Him in Heaven. I will be glorified and a true change of me will have happened.

The essence of common bread and wine no long exist once they are consecrated by the Priest - only the Accidents (all of them) remain.

From the CCC:

1106 Together with the anamnesis, the epiclesis is at the heart of each sacramental celebration, most especially of the Eucharist:

You ask how the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine . . . the Blood of Christ I shall tell you: the Holy Spirit comes upon them and accomplishes what surpasses every word and thought. . . . Let it be enough for you to understand that it is by the Holy Spirit, just as it was of the Holy Virgin and by the Holy Spirit that the Lord, through and in himself, took flesh.

1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

There is a lot more to be said - but, the bottom line is: this is an article of Faith - and it really is quite simple. This Doctrine orbits around the statement made by Jesus at the Last Supper: “Take and eat, this is My Body…” Either you believe what Christ said - and has made know through His Chruch - the CC - or, you don’t. There really isn’t a middle ground here.

The real question: what is making you unhappy to have authorative response to your questions on the CC’s teaching about the Eucharist?

God bless