Real Presence and Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter Questionhaver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Questionhaver

Guest
I’ll have to visit a protestant church due to some company event that’ll be held there (nothing religious, mind) and there is a question I should appreciate an answer to before that.

Luther believed in the Real Presence, Zwingli and Calvin did not but instead claimed consecration to be merely symbolical.
Now, is there a Real Presence in protestant Churches even though they don’t believe in it or is transubstantation denied to heretic churches?
I’m trying to figure out whether I should pay the usual deferences while in there.
 
You haven’t told us which protestant church you will be visiting, so I can’t give you a clear answer to that question. As at a Catholic church, members of protestant denominations may have view and opinions on a “real presence” that span the gamut. Those in denominations that believe in the real presence and are well educated in their faith will believe in a real presence every bit as strongly as Catholics. The Catholic position, as I understand it however, is going to be that there can be no real presence as the clergy in a protestant church do not have an apostolic succession. Protestants, in general, will dismiss that as a non-factor in the equation. Lutherans, United Church of Christ, Moravian, Reformed Church in America, Presbyterians, the United Methodist Church, and the Episcopalians, all believe in a real presence but may not define it the exact same manner.

Some of their views can be seen here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6785727#post6785727
 
Questionhaver said:
Now, is there a Real Presence in protestant Churches
Click to expand...
It is unlikely.

The Catholic Church does not recognize such a concept as a “real presence.” This is a protestant term of dubious meaning.

The concept could (and usually does include) the idea of “receptionism” (ie, it is the Body and Blood if one believes it to be such, and it is simply bread and wine (or grape juice) otherwise.) This is the view espoused by many Anglican/Episcopal groups (and by some Methodists, which are of Anglican origin).

The Catholic Church has embraced the theology of transubstantiation. This goes far beyond a “real presence” doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, Humanity, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing is held back, or left to question.
 
Thank you for answering.
Lutheranteach said:
You haven’t told us which protestant church you will be visiting, so I can’t give you a clear answer to that question.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know what Church I’ll be visiting. I only know it’s protestant and called “municipal church of [insert city name here]”.
As it’s in the northern Switzerland, though, I’m expecting something more “Zwingli-ish”.
As at a Catholic church, members of protestant denominations may have view and opinions on a “real presence” that span the gamut. Those in denominations that believe in the real presence and are well educated in their faith will believe in a real presence every bit as strongly as Catholics.
Click to expand...
No doubt there.
But just as there is the Real Presence in the Catholic Church regardless of whether the ones entering believe in it or not, there must either be or not be a Real Presence in Protestant Churches, whether the church-goers believe in it or not. (my two pence)
The Catholic position, as I understand it however, is going to be that there can be no real presence as the clergy in a protestant church do not have an apostolic succession. Protestants, in general, will dismiss that as a non-factor in the equation.
Click to expand...
So from a Catholic point of view, transubstantation is denied to Protestants due to the lack of authority?
Lutherans, United Church of Christ, Moravian, Reformed Church in America, Presbyterians, the United Methodist Church, and the Episcopalians, all believe in a real presence but may not define it the exact same manner.
Click to expand...
Likely so.
But I don’t believe in God’s being democratic about his entity.
Some of their views can be seen here:
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6785727#post6785727
Click to expand...
Thank you.
DavidFilmer said:
The Catholic Church does not recognize such a concept as a “real presence.” This is a protestant term of dubious meaning.

The concept could (and usually does include) the idea of “receptionism” (ie, it is the Body and Blood if one believes it to be such, and it is simply bread and wine (or grape juice) otherwise.) This is the view espoused by many Anglican/Episcopal groups (and by some Methodists, which are of Anglican origin).

The Catholic Church has embraced the theology of transubstantiation. This goes far beyond a “real presence” doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, Humanity, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing is held back, or left to question.
Click to expand...
That’s curious.
I was under the impression that “Real Presence” meant either the general belief in the Eucharist’s being the actual Body, Blood - and thereby Divinity and Humanity too, of course - of Christ who for that reason is “really present” (hence the expression) or the state described in the literal sense of the expression resulting from said belief; Transubstantiation’s being the expression for the actual transformation taking place during Consecration.
Is that wrong?
 
Questionhaver said:
I’ll have to visit a protestant church due to some company event that’ll be held there (nothing religious, mind) and there is a question I should appreciate an answer to before that.

Luther believed in the Real Presence, Zwingli and Calvin did not but instead claimed consecration to be merely symbolical.
Now, is there a Real Presence in protestant Churches even though they don’t believe in it or is transubstantation denied to heretic churches?
I’m trying to figure out whether I should pay the usual deferences while in there.
Click to expand...
Are you asking whether you should apply the Catholic devotion of genuflecting in a Protestant Church? There is nothing (no-one) in a Protestant Church to genuflect before–there is no tabernacle holding the body and blood of Christ…

Is there a “real” presence in Protestant churches? Of course there is, in the form of the Holy Trinity in whom we live and move and have our being…and from whose presence we cannot escape–no matter where we are…this is where we have to be careful in how we use the term “real presence.” The presence of the Holy Trinity is just as “real” in the life of a baptized Protestant as it is in the life of a Catholic–but for many protestants, there is no belief in a sacramental presence…
The best rule of thumb when visiting another's place of worship is to act politely and unobtrusively and respectfully, as an honored guest. Don't overthink this one.......(and don't genuflect!!! )
 
Brywan said:
Are you asking whether you should apply the Catholic devotion of genuflecting in a Protestant Church? There is nothing (no-one) in a Protestant Church to genuflect before–there is no tabernacle holding the body and blood of Christ…
Click to expand...
There isn’t? Guess I know even less about them Protestants than I thought. -.-
And yes, I was.
Is there a “real” presence in Protestant churches? Of course there is, in the form of the Holy Trinity in whom we live and move and have our being…and from whose presence we cannot escape–no matter where we are…this is where we have to be careful in how we use the term “real presence.” The presence of the Holy Trinity is just as “real” in the life of a baptized Protestant as it is in the life of a Catholic–but for many protestants, there is no belief in a sacramental presence…
Click to expand...
Ah, now I see the problem the expression “real presence” comes with.
Never occured to me for the omnipresence of God’s does require neither Eucharist nor Church.
Guess I’ll have to update my vocabulary.
Thank you.
The best rule of thumb when visiting another’s place of worship is to act politely and unobtrusively and respectfully, as an honored guest. Don’t overthink this one…(and don’t genuflect!!! )
Click to expand...
Alright, thank you.
I just thought that if there were a sacramental presence, it would be rude not to honour it. But if there isn’t, I won’t have to worry about that.
 
Questionhaver said:
I just thought that if there were a sacramental presence, it would be rude not to honour it. But if there isn’t, I won’t have to worry about that.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does not believe there is a sacramental presence in the Eucharist in Protestant churches. In order for the true Eucharist to exist, a valid priest in the line of apostolic succession must confect the Eucharist. Protestant churches do not bear this characteristic. For a reference from official Church teaching, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church:*CCC#1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.*God bless. :o
 
If Jesus was present in the grape juice and crackers I had for the first 18 years of my life, he must have really low standards.
 
Questionhaver said:
I’ll have to visit a protestant church due to some company event that’ll be held there (nothing religious, mind) and there is a question I should appreciate an answer to before that.

Luther believed in the Real Presence, Zwingli and Calvin did not but instead claimed consecration to be merely symbolical.
Now, is there a Real Presence in protestant Churches even though they don’t believe in it or is transubstantation denied to heretic churches?
I’m trying to figure out whether I should pay the usual deferences while in there.
Click to expand...
No, there is not Rel Presence in the protestant churches because they do not have a valid priesthood who can say in a valid way “This is my body”.
 
Questionhaver said:
I was under the impression that “Real Presence” meant either the general belief in the Eucharist’s being the actual Body, Blood - and thereby Divinity and Humanity too, of course - of Christ who for that reason is “really present” (hence the expression) or the state described in the literal sense of the expression resulting from said belief; Transubstantiation’s being the expression for the actual transformation taking place during Consecration.
Is that wrong?
Click to expand...
The term “real presence” is not used by the Catholic Church, and I have only heard it used by those of the Anglican branch of Christianity (including Episcopals, Methodists, and various Wesleyan groups).

The term could embrace the concept of “receptionism” (ie, it is real if I believe it is real), which is the traditional Angilcan viewpoint. The Catholic viewpoint is that it is real, regardless of my (or your) personal opinion (so the Catholic viewpoint is much more “real” than this silly and limited Anglican idea of a “real presence”).

FWIW, I am a former Anglican.
 
There is a possibility that some rouge Catholic priests who have left the Catholic church to become Anglican or Episcopal etc. may possibly still retain their priestly powers to illicitly effect the sacraments – if they retain the intention and have the proper matter to effect the sacraments. But I don’t think any of the Protestants even conform to the proper matter of the sacramental gifts (unleavened and unsweetened wheat bread and ecclesial wine).

But note too that the Anglicans radically changed the liturgy of their originally Catholic mass and Protestantised it under King Edward (King Henry VIIIs son). So its highly dubious that even a defecting Catholic priest could effect the sacraments “illicitly but validly” within the liturgy and context of any Protestant liturgy. The essential words of consecration are not even present in addition to lack of proper matter. And this would be a good thing since Protestants also lack sacramental apostolic absolution so most/many Protestants who would come forward to receive communion in a non-Catholic liturgy would likely receive it unworthily (itself a sacrilege) if it were valid but illicitly converted. They would be piling on grave sin on top of grave sin.

I think that the official Catholic position is that in addition to having the apostolic priestly facilities (“a priest is a priest forever” - good or bad/corrupted) a priest must also have the sanction of an apostolic bishop to effect the sacraments and be in good standing and in communion with all the Bishops and pope. This circumstance would prevent a rogue Catholic priest who became Protestant from conducing a Catholic Mass using the Catholic liturgy in the privacy of his home or at a private mass for Protestants who like to think of themselves as Catholic (e.g. High Anglicans) or as a private mass for friends etc.

But all that said, the Catholic Church can extend conditional apostolic permission to such rogue priests to give last rites and confessions in cases of emergency life and death situations. This grant seems to imply to me that the Church is acknowledging that their priestly powers and authority is valid even if leaving the church and becoming apostate. This is similar to a case of a priest ostensibly in good standing conducting mass while in grave sin also being able to effect the sacraments in the context of a Catholic mass. The key thing is apostolic authority - which NONE of the Protestants have outside of the Church granting them authority to baptise — which anyone can do (even an atheist) if their intentions are valid.

Apart from the topic of “real presence” the more important concept here is that Protestants simply lack the spiritual facilities to properly worship God. All they can do is offer prayers and hymns - mere dulia forms of worship that probably do not even approach the level of veneration we Catholics give Mary (which is hyperdulia). Where Catholic represent to God the same one original timeless sacrifice in the mass and attain Latria form of worship - true worship.

The implications of non-real presence in the most solemn of Protestants liturgies (Anglican) are that Protestants CAN’T even even worship God (ref. Cain an Abel here) a sacrifice that He finds most pleasing - His only Son. Ergo, Protestants never attain to true worship of God due inability to effect Eucharist. But they probably participate in some of the spiritual communion graces that flow from Christ through His Catholic Church every time we offer daily mass all around the planet and pray for sinners at large.

BF
 
Questionhaver said:
I’ll have to visit a protestant church due to some company event that’ll be held there (nothing religious, mind) and there is a question I should appreciate an answer to before that.

Luther believed in the Real Presence, Zwingli and Calvin did not but instead claimed consecration to be merely symbolical.
Now, is there a Real Presence in protestant Churches even though they don’t believe in it or is transubstantation denied to heretic churches?
I’m trying to figure out whether I should pay the usual deferences while in there.
Click to expand...
The fact is that the Catholic Church teaches that Lutherans (not speaking of those in Scandinavia that have maintained it), do not have valid orders, and therefore no valid Eucharist. So, you should by all means follow the teachings of the Catholic Church if the church you are visiting is Lutheran. It is the same advice I would give a Lutheran visiting a Catholic church, even though we recognize the validity of Catholic orders and sacrament. When visiting, show respect and obey the requests of the host church (and your own) when a guest. Good manners, and the goal of eventual reconcilation between our communions, are best met that way.

While the teachings of the Catholic Church remains, there has been much movement over the last few decades between Rome and Lutheranism on this subject, noted in these two articles. They may or may not help you in your question, but the are interesting reading on the subject, and hold hope for the future.

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

It is in the first document that I first saw the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger that is in my signature.

Jon
 
A protestant church deserves the same respect you’d show a barn. There’s nothing in it that’s holy, sacred, or deserves any respect.
 
Desertsailor said:
A protestant church deserves the same respect you’d show a barn. There’s nothing in it that’s holy, sacred, or deserves any respect.
Click to expand...
Wow…and if I said such a thing about a Catholic Church how long would my post be up? Stay classy. I hope at least some of the Catholics here find that post as insulting as I do. I really, REALLY don’t want to believe that these sentiments of most Catholics.
 
(Edited)

On topic, no there is no reason to genuflect however you can still show mutual respect. However, do NOT for any reason take part in their “communion.”

Pax Christi,

Bosco Guy
 
Bosco_Guy said:
Protestants, although not in communion with the Church, are baptised in the name of the trinity and still deserve respect just as we would expect respect. Christ called us to love one another and in the end calling a protestant place of worship no better then a barn is very rude and rather un-humble. No they don’t have valid Eucharist but that doesn’t mean that their house of worship is worthless or deserves no repsect. It is wise to keep in mind that the Holy Spirit and God will work threw whatever means they choose not based on what we lowly sinners believe to by holy or not.

Pax Christi,

Bosco Guy
Click to expand...
Thank you,
Jon
 
Desertsailor said:
A protestant church deserves the same respect you’d show a barn. There’s nothing in it that’s holy, sacred, or deserves any respect.
Click to expand...
It might be wise to remember that especially in Germany many of the Lutheran Churches were at one time consecrated to the Lord as Catholic Churches. Those that were not burned to the ground and looted for their art and gold chalices etc. where simply “taken” or “stolen” from the Catholic Church by the secular states and given back to state appointed Lutheran “clergy” as state owned property and institutions.

We are not required to reverence or venerate any non-Catholic facility but I would certainly show reverence for hallowed grounds that probably still hold Catholic consecrated grave sites of saints and may still retain sacred items in them. It would not surprise me if some of the original Catholic altars are still in use complete with Catholic altar stones with saintly relics that the Protestants forgot about - not to mention that these churches may have been built right over old missionary chapel remains.

At the bottom we must respect all humans as made in the image of God and accord them the same respect and dignity that all humans are entitled to.

BF
 
Desertsailor said:
A protestant church deserves the same respect you’d show a barn. There’s nothing in it that’s holy, sacred, or deserves any respect.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone want to respond to a post like this. It only shows the charactor of the person that posted it which is ,well :confused::rolleyes::yawn:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top