Protestants: What Are Your Various Beliefs on the Holy Eucharist?

[Richard_White]

In other words, “gotcha.”

I really wish the Pope would just command Catholics to stop engaging in “apologetics” on pain of mortal sin. (Well, this Pope has said some snarky things about “proselytization,” and more power to him.)

I won’t address your whole statement now because it is late and I’m tired haha. However, your understanding of the papacy and his role in the Catholic Church is so flawed that it just cries out to be addressed! Although you were obviously being facetious, just the mere idea that you would say that shows that you believe that we, as Catholics, follow the Pope blindly and do his every whim. But this is NOT true at all. When he or the whole Magisterium proclaims on matters of faith and morals (either through an ex cathedra statement or through an ecumenical council) he is infallible as he is guided by the Holy Spirit and we are obliged to recognize these Truths as they have been reveals by God Himself and have been taught to us by the Magisterium. However, he does not just command cultural or societal things and we follow like flies to a lamp. Not to mention your rude undertone in regard to mortal sin (which is biblical, by the way).

May God bless you abundantly and forever!

 

[Contarini]

I won’t address your whole statement now because it is late and I’m tired haha. However, your understanding of the papacy and his role in the Catholic Church is so flawed that it just cries out to be addressed! Although you were obviously being facetious, just the mere idea that you would say that shows that you believe that we, as Catholics, follow the Pope blindly and do his every whim. But this is NOT true at all. When he or the whole Magisterium proclaims on matters of faith and morals (either through an ex cathedra statement or through an ecumenical council) he is infallible as he is guided by the Holy Spirit and we are obliged to recognize these Truths as they have been reveals by God Himself and have been taught to us by the Magisterium. However, he does not just command cultural or societal things and we follow like flies to a lamp. Not to mention your rude undertone in regard to mortal sin (which is biblical, by the way).

May God bless you abundantly and forever!

Yes, I was being facetious.

But again, this is the problem I have. Apologetics is more poisonous than heresy, so if the Pope can condemn the one, why not the other?

All the heretics in the world can’t damage the faith, really.

But bad apologetics can.

Edwin

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Yes, I was being facetious.

But again, this is the problem I have. Apologetics is more poisonous than heresy, so if the Pope can condemn the one, why not the other?

All the heretics in the world can’t damage the faith, really.

But bad apologetics can.

Edwin

It’s also a double edged sword. What began my questioning of my Catholic faith was me going out and crossing swords with Protestants in the first place. Well I guess I was already questioning it, but I was just trying to convince myself.

 

[jane_doe]

I wanted to ask you your beliefs in he Eucharist so that I could address them and try to prove that my Catholic belief is the correct one and that your Protestant view is wrong.

Richard, a piece of advice: simply telling a person their views are wrong is a poor method of convincing them of your view-- all that person is going to do is hunker down their theological trenches.

A far better way of sharing views is Christ-like: to love a person and to understand their views/feelings fully in love. After you have a relationship of respect and understanding, THEN you can share your views and have the other person hear you.

If you truly have the truth, does it really need fancy apologetic arguments to defend it? No, the truth defends itself well enough without our words. You only need to lovingly ask the door to open and the truth will reach someone.

 

[Richard_White]

Richard, a piece of advice: simply telling a person their views are wrong is a poor method of convincing them of your view-- all that person is going to do is hunker down their theological trenches.

A far better way of sharing views is Christ-like: to love a person and to understand their views/feelings fully in love. After you have a relationship of respect and understanding, THEN you can share your views and have the other person hear you.

If you truly have the truth, does it really need fancy apologetic arguments to defend it? No, the truth defends itself well enough without our words. You only need to lovingly ask the door to open and the truth will reach someone.

Haha I know that my method is not the best. But really, there is no way to spread the faith well through these forums. One needs face-to-face interaction in order to convert someone to Catholicism and to get your point across so that there can be a cohesive conversation and argument. CAF, therefore, while great, is not a place to necessarily do really big things in this regard.

Hopefully, though, I planted some type of sees for the Holy Spirit to take over for somebody!

May God bless you all, and Happy Tuesday!

 

[Contarini]

Haha I know that my method is not the best. But really, there is no way to spread the faith well through these forums.

I don’t think that’s true at all.

There’s a lot of value simply to explaining the depth and beauty of Catholic teaching, clearing up misunderstandings, etc. (And by saying that, I’m admitting that some of my over-the-top statements about apologetics are deliberate hyperbole directed against the way I see apologetics being done.)

And your initial question would have been a very valuable one if it had been more sincere. That is to say, if you had been open to understanding the real diversity of Protestant views and to the possibility that some of them aren’t as wrong as you think they are.

So when the Lutheran poster responded, “I believe in the Real Presence but not in transubstantiation,” you could have responded, “well, we have a lot of common ground. What exactly do you find objectionable about transubstantiation?” Instead, you set out to prove that the Lutheran view was obviously wrong and contrary to the earliest Christian statements on the Eucharist, which was an unwinnable argument.

As a Catholic, you are in a win-win situation on these kinds of issues. If you show that the Protestant is wrong, then obviously that is a win. But if you show that there is really no fundamental difference, then you show that Protestants don’t need to remain out of communion with Rome because of this issue. It’s the person committed to justifying remaining in separation from Rome who has to show both that the other side is wrong and that there is a meaningful disagreement in the first place. So apart from the general moral and spiritual reasons to take a generous, charitable approach, you have every pragmatic reason to do so as well.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

I don’t think that’s true at all.

There’s a lot of value simply to explaining the depth and beauty of Catholic teaching, clearing up misunderstandings, etc. (And by saying that, I’m admitting that some of my over-the-top statements about apologetics are deliberate hyperbole directed against the way I see apologetics being done.)

And your initial question would have been a very valuable one if it had been more sincere. That is to say, if you had been open to understanding the real diversity of Protestant views and to the possibility that some of them aren’t as wrong as you think they are.

So when the Lutheran poster responded, “I believe in the Real Presence but not in transubstantiation,” you could have responded, “well, we have a lot of common ground. What exactly do you find objectionable about transubstantiation?” Instead, you set out to prove that the Lutheran view was obviously wrong and contrary to the earliest Christian statements on the Eucharist, which was an unwinnable argument.

As a Catholic, you are in a win-win situation on these kinds of issues. If you show that the Protestant is wrong, then obviously that is a win. But if you show that there is really no fundamental difference, then you show that Protestants don’t need to remain out of communion with Rome because of this issue. It’s the person committed to justifying remaining in separation from Rome who has to show both that the other side is wrong and that there is a meaningful disagreement in the first place. So apart from the general moral and spiritual reasons to take a generous, charitable approach, you have every pragmatic reason to do so as well.

Edwin

I’d box this and pin it to the top of the forum

 

[truetofaith]

Hmmm.
The OP asked “what”.
I wonder does he really want all the why’s? And why? Amateur apologist?
Or just being contentious?
This thread is making me very uncomfortable.
I myself, would very much hesitate to say everyone is a theologian.
That’s terribly misleading.

I agree…I can’t engage in a Topic that has Protestants & Catholics at odds for hundreds of years.

 

[Richard_White]

I don’t think that’s true at all.

There’s a lot of value simply to explaining the depth and beauty of Catholic teaching, clearing up misunderstandings, etc. (And by saying that, I’m admitting that some of my over-the-top statements about apologetics are deliberate hyperbole directed against the way I see apologetics being done.)

And your initial question would have been a very valuable one if it had been more sincere. That is to say, if you had been open to understanding the real diversity of Protestant views and to the possibility that some of them aren’t as wrong as you think they are.

So when the Lutheran poster responded, “I believe in the Real Presence but not in transubstantiation,” you could have responded, “well, we have a lot of common ground. What exactly do you find objectionable about transubstantiation?” Instead, you set out to prove that the Lutheran view was obviously wrong and contrary to the earliest Christian statements on the Eucharist, which was an unwinnable argument.

As a Catholic, you are in a win-win situation on these kinds of issues. If you show that the Protestant is wrong, then obviously that is a win. But if you show that there is really no fundamental difference, then you show that Protestants don’t need to remain out of communion with Rome because of this issue. It’s the person committed to justifying remaining in separation from Rome who has to show both that the other side is wrong and that there is a meaningful disagreement in the first place. So apart from the general moral and spiritual reasons to take a generous, charitable approach, you have every pragmatic reason to do so as well.

Edwin

Yeah, I need to get a little more eloquence in the way that I write my responses. On another note, I was kind of upset that not as many people responded to my thread as I wanted. It was pretty much just one argument with one person the whole time haha.

Oh well! I’ll try another thread on this sub-forum some other day!

Again, may God bless you all abundantly and forever!

 

[GKC]

Yeah, I need to get a little more eloquence in the way that I write my responses. On another note, I was kind of upset that not as many people responded to my thread as I wanted. It was pretty much just one argument with one person the whole time haha.

Oh well! I’ll try another thread on this sub-forum some other day!

Again, may God bless you all abundantly and forever!

If you do try again, maybe try for more a discussion than an argument. Just a suggestion.

 

[spedteacherita]

.

Your conclusion is what you certainly should affirm, based on the teaching of the RCC.
Lutherans, and others similarly situated, quite likely have another view of the situation.

 

[spedteacherita]

Yep.

Jon

 

[spedteacherita]

In other words, “gotcha.”

I really wish the Pope would just command Catholics to stop engaging in “apologetics” on pain of mortal sin. (Well, this Pope has said some snarky things about “proselytization,” and more power to him.)

Originally I thought “apologetics” was supposed to be defending the faith from people who attack it.

Now it’s become polemic of a particularly juvenile kind.

“Tell me your beliefs so I can prove you wrong.”

At least you are honest about it.

Edwin

Well-stated, Edwin. I knew from the title of the thread what I was getting into…just wanted to give it a chance and see where it went to.

God bless,

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

I won’t address your whole statement now because it is late and I’m tired haha. However, your understanding of the papacy and his role in the Catholic Church is so flawed that it just cries out to be addressed! Although you were obviously being facetious, just the mere idea that you would say that shows that you believe that we, as Catholics, follow the Pope blindly and do his every whim. But this is NOT true at all. When he or the whole Magisterium proclaims on matters of faith and morals (either through an ex cathedra statement or through an ecumenical council) he is infallible as he is guided by the Holy Spirit and we are obliged to recognize these Truths as they have been reveals by God Himself and have been taught to us by the Magisterium. However, he does not just command cultural or societal things and we follow like flies to a lamp. Not to mention your rude undertone in regard to mortal sin (which is biblical, by the way).

May God bless you abundantly and forever!

Hi, Richard,

I’ve heard a lot about Mortal Sin in these thread but have never seen the Biblical basis for the term. Would you help me out by sharing them with me?

Thanks, and God bless!

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

Richard, a piece of advice: simply telling a person their views are wrong is a poor method of convincing them of your view-- all that person is going to do is hunker down their theological trenches.

A far better way of sharing views is Christ-like: to love a person and to understand their views/feelings fully in love. After you have a relationship of respect and understanding, THEN you can share your views and have the other person hear you.

If you truly have the truth, does it really need fancy apologetic arguments to defend it? No, the truth defends itself well enough without our words. You only need to lovingly ask the door to open and the truth will reach someone.

Well stated, Jane!

Blessings, Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

I don’t think that’s true at all.

There’s a lot of value simply to explaining the depth and beauty of Catholic teaching, clearing up misunderstandings, etc. (And by saying that, I’m admitting that some of my over-the-top statements about apologetics are deliberate hyperbole directed against the way I see apologetics being done.)

And your initial question would have been a very valuable one if it had been more sincere. That is to say, if you had been open to understanding the real diversity of Protestant views and to the possibility that some of them aren’t as wrong as you think they are.

So when the Lutheran poster responded, “I believe in the Real Presence but not in transubstantiation,” you could have responded, “well, we have a lot of common ground. What exactly do you find objectionable about transubstantiation?” Instead, you set out to prove that the Lutheran view was obviously wrong and contrary to the earliest Christian statements on the Eucharist, which was an unwinnable argument.

As a Catholic, you are in a win-win situation on these kinds of issues. If you show that the Protestant is wrong, then obviously that is a win. But if you show that there is really no fundamental difference, then you show that Protestants don’t need to remain out of communion with Rome because of this issue. It’s the person committed to justifying remaining in separation from Rome who has to show both that the other side is wrong and that there is a meaningful disagreement in the first place. So apart from the general moral and spiritual reasons to take a generous, charitable approach, you have every pragmatic reason to do so as well.

Edwin

And, seriously, Richard, you quoted Irenaeus on the topic of the Eucharist but that statement doesnt refute my understanding of our Communion. I’d like to know more words from our Earliest Church Fathers to see their understanding. I was intrigued enough last night to find the quote from Irenaeus. I’m very curious and I am trying to study the Earliest Church Fathers for their thoughts on some of the differences we have today.

Thanks,

Rita

 

[Matthew_Light]

As a Catholic, you are in a win-win situation on these kinds of issues. If you show that the Protestant is wrong, then obviously that is a win. But if you show that there is really no fundamental difference, then you show that Protestants don’t need to remain out of communion with Rome because of this issue. It’s the person committed to justifying remaining in separation from Rome who has to show both that the other side is wrong and that there is a meaningful disagreement in the first place. So apart from the general moral and spiritual reasons to take a generous, charitable approach, you have every pragmatic reason to do so as well.

Edwin

:clapping:

 

[ltwin]

My dear friends in Christ,

I would like to ask all of our separated brethren what your personal beliefs are regarding the Holy Eucharist. You all know that we, as Catholics believe that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ (the Real Presence) and I know that this is the Truth.

I am curious to see what your own beliefs are. Please answer honestly, hospitably, and charitably, keeping focus on the question.

Thank you and may God bless you all abundantly and forever!

In his book Living the Spirit Formed Life: Growing in the Ten Principles of Spirit-Filled Discipleship, well-known Pentecostal pastor Jack Hayford writes (p. 41-43):

[The] Church’s concept of a sacrament proposes the participation of two parties: God (the party of the first part) has made a provision, and with specific actions, or deeds, we (the parties of the second part) respond to His provision. God, being the initiating party, has made a deposit of gracious provisions. For our part we, too, make a deposit: our faith to believe and our willing obedience to participate.

For Pentecostals, the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion has the following meaning for us:

Celebration of victory

Proclamation of redemption

Declaration of dependence on Christ, as Jack Hayford writes, “by partaking of the Lord’s Table, we receive transfusions of His holy power, through the pure dynamic of the blood of Jesus Christ–power to conquer sin in any way it seeks to dominate our lives” (p. 61).

A time for self-examination. We come to the Table to be forgiven, so we cannot be unforgiving.

Provision for healing, per Hayford, “Come to this moment recognizing the full weight and full worth of what Christ has done for you at Calvary. Come and partake of full forgiveness, full deliverance and full healing!” (p. 65).