Returning to the Protestant Faith

[schaick]

This is incorrect. Jesus is fully present - body, blood, soul and divinity - in the host, and He is fully present - body, blood, soul and divinity - in the chalice. This is supported clearly by scripture.

Thus, when you receive communion under one species, you have received all there is. Receiving under both species has great symbolic value, but nothing is missed if you do not.

I go by these scriptures:

Matthew 26
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 22
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Please point what scripture you are following, thanks.

When did they take wine out of the Eucharist and why did they add it back in?

I am trying to remember, doesn’t the Priest hold up the bread and wine blood separately as he consecrates the 2 elements?

In my church the chalice hold only the wine/blood.

 

[Contarini]

What’s this deal that folks who leave the Church talking about being “spiritually fed”?

I hear this from nearly every one. Is this protestant-talk

Yes, it is. Perhaps the best Catholic equivalent would be “consolations.” But the mystics agree that those of us who are weak in our faith need consolations. Presenting someone with what amounts to a Dark Night at the beginning of their journey as Catholics is too harsh a challenge. I fell away (before actually being received into the Church) for this reason as well. After two months of inane Bible studies and social justice sermons (I have nothing against social justice, and today would appreciate the social justice emphasis of that particular parish more than I did then, but it wasn’t what I thought of as the Gospel), with the occasional Jungian analysis of Marian doctrine to keep things interesting, I went to the installation of a friend of mine as a Presbyterian pastor and sang the Protestant hymns of my childhood and said to myself “I haven’t really worshiped God for two months” (bear in mind that this parish practiced the Dismissal of the Catechumens, so I hadn’t been attending the Liturgy of the Eucharist, though admittedly no would would have stopped me if I’d attended another Mass as well and stayed all the way through).

Certainly evangelicals do put too much emphasis on emotions. But emotions are a part of our humanity. The coldness and dullness of most Catholic worship is understandably repellent to a lot of people, as is the emptiness of most Catholic preaching. You need to deal with these things as real problems instead of mocking those who are put off by them.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for the response. I understand that the Catholic priest commands Jesus to come down from heaven and must respond as part of the mystical powers associated with the sacrament of Holy Orders. Do I understand this correctly

No. Jesus is the one who gave the command: “Do this in remembrance of Me,” and who said that the bread was His Body.

Jesus is faithful to be where He said He would be. That is not the same thing as being subject to our commands. The God of orthodox Christianity is a gracious, covenant-keeping God.

Edwin

 

[schaick]

I honestly don’t. Even though I used to believe the teachings concerning the Eucharist with all of my heart for the longest time and even though I went to mass every day and to adoration as often as I could I am not convinced anymore and I do not miss it (receiving the Eucharist).

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

In Him,
Janet

I have a friend very devote Christian that is vegetarian. What if a person just can’t stomach the thought of the bread and wine being the body and blood?

I know that Catholics rate sins- which is more of a sin not believing that the body and blood is present or not believing that Jesus died for your sins?

 

[Contarini]

I am just wondering and any Catholic is encouraged to share their view as well. Although I was not asked my opinion; I do think it is interesting that Paul wasn’t there; yet gives clarification as to the symbolic nature of the Lord’s Supper, which is in verse 26.

Nothing there (or anywhere else in Scripture) about the Lord’s Supper being symbolic.

Of course, the Lord’s Supper certainly is symbolic. The question is whether it is *merely *symbolic and in what sense it is symbolic. But nothing in Scripture explicitly speaks of it being symbolic.

Verse 26 also is worth noting because it is proclaiming His death til he comes. Which is referring to His second coming; therefore how is it He comes to the wine and the wafer; seems like a glaring contradiction based on my very little understanding of the literal eating & drinking.

Catholics who use the word “literal” do put themselves at a disadvantage. As an Anglican, I certainly do not believe that it is “literal,” and that’s not a word I’d apply to the classical theory of transubstantiation either (a theory to which I am not committed but which I don’t see as fundamentally or seriously wrong, just a bit too convoluted and strained in places).

But I do believe in the Real Presence. Christ is sacramentally present under the appearance (not an illusion but the level of reality perceptible by the senses) of bread and wine. (That is a statement that fits transubstantiation as well as other views of the Real Presence.) A sacramental presence is not the same thing as a presence under what Aquinas would call Christ’s “natural dimensions.”

As I said, I’m not committed to the technicalities of transubstantiation. But the paradox that you seem to have problems with–that Christ is present and yet that we look for His future coming–seems to me to be basic to orthodox Christianity. The Kingdom is already here–and yet it is yet to come. Christ has conquered death–and yet we die. We are redeemed from sin–and yet Christians still sin.

Edwin

 

[CWBetts]

I’m attending membership class for a non-denom church tonight. I’ve been attending for the last 6 months and just love it there. I am finally being fed spiritually again. (Catholic for 3 years)

Highly doubtful. In the Catholic Church you are fed the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Risen Savior. In the non-denominational churches you are entertained.

 

[CWBetts]

Nothing there (or anywhere else in Scripture) about the Lord’s Supper being symbolic.

Of course, the Lord’s Supper certainly is symbolic. The question is whether it is *merely *symbolic and in what sense it is symbolic. But nothing in Scripture explicitly speaks of it being symbolic.

Catholics who use the word “literal” do put themselves at a disadvantage. As an Anglican, I certainly do not believe that it is “literal,” and that’s not a word I’d apply to the classical theory of transubstantiation either (a theory to which I am not committed but which I don’t see as fundamentally or seriously wrong, just a bit too convoluted and strained in places).

But I do believe in the Real Presence. Christ is sacramentally present under the appearance (not an illusion but the level of reality perceptible by the senses) of bread and wine. (That is a statement that fits transubstantiation as well as other views of the Real Presence.) A sacramental presence is not the same thing as a presence under what Aquinas would call Christ’s “natural dimensions.”

As I said, I’m not committed to the technicalities of transubstantiation. But the paradox that you seem to have problems with–that Christ is present and yet that we look for His future coming–seems to me to be basic to orthodox Christianity. The Kingdom is already here–and yet it is yet to come. Christ has conquered death–and yet we die. We are redeemed from sin–and yet Christians still sin.

Edwin

I heard a preast once say “Jesus isn’t literally there, he is sacramentally there. If the Lord would walk through the door right now, he wouldn’t look like a Host.” I guess the point is that the substance changes, but not the material.

 

[Contarini]

Granted Lutherans have a closer belief in communion than other protestants (other than some Anglicans), it is not the same as the real presence.

Lutherans certainly believe in the Real Presence. It is your prerogative to say that they are wrong.

I don’t intend any disrespect and and I think it is a good thing that Lutherans have a closer understanding. (Note I was a ELCA Lutheran for about 12 years.) However, it is not held in the same regard, left overs are thrown away or poured down the drain.

That’s because the dominant (not universal) view among Lutherans is that the Real Presence ends when the liturgy ends. I’m pretty sure that the more “high church” Lutherans would be horrified by the practice of throwing away leftovers, though.

There is no tabernacle where our Lord can be adored.

Because, again, in Lutheranism the Real Presence is there to be received.

There is no priesthood to consecrate it.

True, which is why your current Communion does not regard the Lutherans as having the Real Presence. That is irrelevant for the question of whether Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, though.

A state a Grace is not required to receive it.

Yes, but in a sense that stems from a higher view of the Eucharist than Catholics have. Catholics think that the Eucharist merely strengthens the divine life where it is present. Lutherans believe that the Eucharist, and the other means of grace, are meant for “real sinners”–for those who are unworthy of them (which is everyone, but not everyone realizes it) and need the saving grace of God.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Highly doubtful. In the Catholic Church you are fed the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Risen Savior. In the non-denominational churches you are entertained.

Unfair generalization, but admittedly I made some generalizations of my own about Catholic worship.

“Non-denominational churches” are a very diverse lot. The big ones–the ones you are likely to hear about–do focus a lot on entertainment, though even there I wouldn’t say that that’s all that is going on. (Often the big Sunday service focuses on getting a basic message out to “seekers” who are not yet committed to the Christian faith, and the edification of the faithful is done through small group meetings. I think that this is the wrong approach and clearly in conflict with ancient Christian practice, but it’s not fair to say that such churches only “entertain.”)

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please point what scripture you are following, thanks.

Sure.

1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

See? If you eat the bread OR if you drink the cup in an unworthy manner, you are guilty of sinning against both the body and the blood. Therefore, the Body and the Blood are both contained in each species.

When did they take wine out of the Eucharist and why did they add it back in?

The Eucharist was distributed under one species only in order to reinforce the idea just explained above. Now that catechesis has improved in this area, the bishops have authorized reception of both forms. Of course, priests were always receiving under both species. Finally, due to the H1N1 Flu scare this year, our bishop has temporarily suspended the reception from the cup. However, since we receive the Eucharist fully under one species, there is no loss.

I am trying to remember, doesn’t the Priest hold up the bread and wine blood separately as he consecrates the 2 elements?

No. The elements are consecrated separately. He holds them both up after consecration.

In my church the chalice hold only the wine/blood.

That makes sense. The paten contains the hosts and the cup contains the blood.

 

[Contarini]

My experience with Methodists leads me to believe they do NOT believe in the real presence. They see it as symbolic only.

Methodists tend to be fuzzy doctrinally, and this is an example. Most Methodists, including many pastors, probably do see it as purely symbolic. However, the United Methodist Church (speaking just of the U.S. here) does have an official teaching on the subject. And while I admit that the document is rather vague on the question of the Real Presence, it clearly does affirm it in some sense (as well as strongly affirming that the Eucharist is a means of grace) and rejects a purely “memorialist” view.

Edwin

 

[Katrina5]

Not at all. I love my Bible class and the chapel I go to. It’s just odd when I’ve been Catholic all of my life and I start to notice a pattern in their prayer. It’s like how we repeat the same prayers, except they go freestyle with a strong splash of “just”. Please don’t misunderstand me.

I’ve noticed the “just” also and am so sorry that it made me chuckle when I read this. I had the impression they use it in their free-form prayers as an attitude of humility before God.

 

[schaick]

Of course Jesus was the first to proclaim it, at the last supper, BUT, again - no one would have any idea what Jesus said if not for His Church.

The ‘power to transform’ is erroneous. Nothing is ‘transformed’. The proper word is ‘transubstantiation’. The substance of the bread and wine is changed, not the form. And that is something only a validly ordained priest can do. Tha ancient Church taught it, and we have faithfully preserved it over the centuries.

Sorry, I was using the word transform as in the 3rd meaning of the word:

transform–verb 1. to change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose. 2. to change in condition, nature, or character; convert. 3. to change into another substance; transmute.

transubstantiation –noun 1. the changing of one substance into another. 2. Theology. to change (the bread and wine) into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist

Here is what I believe- in, under and with:
consubstantiation–noun Theology. the doctrine that the substance of the body and blood of Christ coexist in and with the substance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

What do you mean by “Catholics not receiving the full meal”?

Some time back Catholics did not receive the wine.

See? If you eat the bread OR if you drink the cup in an unworthy manner, you are guilty of sinning against both the body and the blood. Therefore, the Body and the Blood are both contained in each species.

I believe more is being read into this verse then what is there, here I found this [can’t seem to get the link to work:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ined+in+each+species&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom

Holy Communion Under Both Kinds

1. From the first days of the Church’s celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.
2. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a “custom” of the Church. (28) This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.
3. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:
   The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See. . . . (29)
4. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:
   Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom. (30)
   The General Instruction further states that “at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly.” (31)
5. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. (32) But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.” (33)

 

[jmcrae]

Do they ever use the words of Paul from 1 Corinthians 11?
1 Corinthians 11:23-34
23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.

I am just wondering and any Catholic is encouraged to share their view as well. Although I was not asked my opinion; I do think it is interesting that Paul wasn’t there; yet gives clarification as to the symbolic nature of the Lord’s Supper, which is in verse 26. Verse 26 also is worth noting because it is proclaiming His death til he comes. Which is referring to His second coming; therefore how is it He comes to the wine and the wafer; seems like a glaring contradiction based on my very little understanding of the literal eating & drinking. So any thoughts about this I hope to gain a better understanding of what id taught by Catholics and I guess something similar by Lutherans.

And yet St. Paul warns of condemnation, if we don’t perceive Christ in the elements, by faith, but think that we are only eating bread and drinking wine.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Catholics would call him anti-Catholic because he compares Biblical doctrine with Catholic doctrine and according to him they are not in agreement. He is a great expositor, verse by verse mainly, of the bible.

I believe for those seriously interested in apologetic’s and defending the Catholic doctrines and faith should study what he says concerning the priesthood, the mass, the worship of Mary and saints. All the sermons are free to download (40 years worth), free to read and free to just listen at the computer.

Why do I say this? Because he is very respected among true fundamental Calvinistic Evangelical circles, not a hypercalvinist. If you learn to refute him, then you have a BIG leg up on polishing ones Catholic apologetic skills against a formidable opponet. GTY.org is the site and just type in Catholic and view the results.

I am wondering the same as you are about before, during or after.

Why does he have to bring up Catholicism at all? Simply preach from (his interpretation of) the Bible to teach. I don’t understand why some preachers & teachers need to put down other faiths to supposedly teaching their own. I listen to Christian (nonCatholic) radio from time to time and enjoy some of the people on there (Ravi Zacharaius (sp?), Chip Ingram, Greg Laurie, Dr. Dobson, etc) even if they believe somethings I disagree with, but it’s a huge turnoff when someone specifically brings up Catholicism in order to say it’s wrong. I KNOW they don’t believe Catholicism is true, as they’re not Catholic, they don’t have to insult me!

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Contarini]

Why does he have to bring up Catholicism at all? Simply preach from (his interpretation of) the Bible to teach. I don’t understand why some preachers & teachers need to put down other faiths to supposedly teaching their own. I listen to Christian (nonCatholic) radio from time to time and enjoy some of the people on there (Ravi Zacharaius (sp?), Chip Ingram, Greg Laurie, Dr. Dobson, etc) even if they believe somethings I disagree with, but it’s a huge turnoff when someone specifically brings up Catholicism in order to say it’s wrong. I KNOW they don’t believe Catholicism is true, as they’re not Catholic, they don’t have to insult me!

To be fair, it’s a longstanding Christian practice to compare true doctrine with false (I don’t agree with MacArthur on what is true and what is false, of course!). And it’s not as if Catholics don’t do it. It’s true that most priests today don’t do it. But from what I’ve read this was not the case before Vatican II, when attacks on Protestantism and other non-Catholic views were common. And the huge Catholic apologetics industry clearly shows that many Catholics feel the need to defend their faith and criticize theological views they regard as false.

For MacArthur, Catholicism is an enemy of the Gospel. Given his premises, I think he does the right thing in attacking it. But I don’t agree with his premises.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

I disagree with the notion that a marriage should not be valid if one of the partners is physically incapable of reproducing. (Well that’s not quite a moral thing, but if they want to live together it becomes one).

It is only invalid if one of the partners is physically unable to consummate the marriage - ie: he or she is physically incapable of having sex. I hope we would both agree that a couple who is not having sex, has never had sex, and will likely never have sex, is living as brother and sister; not as husband and wife. They could still live together, but they would not be considered validly married by the Church. It would have very little impact on their actual living arrangements, though - she could still cook for him, and he could still share his earnings with her.

I think that NFP is a must for special cases. I think that someone who habitually miscarries (like me, I’ve had 4 in 2 years of marriage) should make sure that there is no conception until the problem is found and can be dealt with. Anything else would be unethical too.

The Church does not disagree with this, and in fact this is exactly what the Church visualizes people using NFP for - where are you getting the idea that it does?

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I’ve noticed the “just” also and am so sorry that it made me chuckle when I read this. I had the impression they use it in their free-form prayers as an attitude of humility before God.

That’s the impression I’ve gotten, and it makes sense, as we are JUST measly human creatures appealing our wants and needs to the Great, Awesome, Almight God. I noticed it when I started dating my husband and listening to his family pray (all S. Baptist or nondenominational Christians), and then also noticed it on the nonCatholic Christian radio station I sometimes listen to, as well. It does seem to be kind of a “tradition”, doesn’t it?

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[ALLGIRLS]

To be fair, it’s a longstanding Christian practice to compare true doctrine with false (I don’t agree with MacArthur on what is true and what is false, of course!). And it’s not as if Catholics don’t do it. It’s true that most priests today don’t do it. But from what I’ve read this was not the case before Vatican II, when attacks on Protestantism and other non-Catholic views were common. And the huge Catholic apologetics industry clearly shows that many Catholics feel the need to defend their faith and criticize theological views they regard as false.

For MacArthur, Catholicism is an enemy of the Gospel. Given his premises, I think he does the right thing in attacking it. But I don’t agree with his premises.

Edwin

I guess that’s the problem I have, the “enemy of the Gospel” part. I’m fine w/ differing views, as well as defending those views, using Scripture, Tradition, history, whatever. But I would never call another Christian tradition (belief, denomination, whatever you’d like to call it) “an enemy of the Gospel” and go after them like MacArthur and some others do w/ Catholicism. “The Southern Baptist Convention preaches a false Gospel”. The sounds so ridiculous! Of course, I don’t think S. Baptists have the complete Gospel, but as they are preaching Christ as Savior I’m not going to attack them and say they aren’t Christians and need to be “saved”, or talk about the “evils” of the Altar Call and Believer’s Baptism.

I don’t know, I guess I just don’t know why we all can’t “just get along”

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Katrina5]

Simple, because Jesus said that where ever two or more are gathered in his name, that he will be in the midst of them.

Having Jesus that close by faith is good enough for me. In fact it doesn’t get any better than that ever.

Somewhere through the years I understood that this actually said, “wherever two or more are gathered in his name, there will be a disagreement”.

I have heard many “disagreements” over denominations that end with a sigh and, “there will be no denominations in heaven.”

And there is some quote (not sure exactly how it goes) about the world being a bus and all the Christians get on the same bus and go to heaven.

The destination may be the same, but I really think that you can’t be Catholic if you don’t want AUTHORITY, you think that we are all independent of one another, take the path of least resistance, or think that Churches (denominations) are just a matter of “style” or “taste”. Like a shopping mall, going from church to church until you find one that fits, or it fits until you gain weight, get older, it wears out, or you get tired of it.

A protestant person I know recently decided that canonized Saints must be something like celebrities, because she saw no reason for them.

Holding a ticket to heaven in your back pocket while you do whatever you please doesn’t make sense to me.