The Eucharist and Protestants

[Gabbanelli911]

If the Eucharist is biblical, why do Protestants ignore it?

 

[Nita]

If the Eucharist is biblical, why do Protestants ignore it?

I don’t know if they ignore it, but they do interpret those Bible passages in a symbolic rather than a literal way because that is what they have been taught to do.
And perhaps that is God’s will for them to believe that. Since they do not have validly ordained priests, it is not the literal Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus – it is only symbolic.

How undeservedly blessed we are to be Catholic.

 

[oldcelt]

I have a friend who attends a non-denominational church. To them the Eucharist is a time for fellowship and remembrance of Jesus

 

[RosslynV]

Protestants interpret the Bible literally only when it suits them. Jesus’ discourse about his Body and Blood is one part in which they are somehow blinded by its meaning.

 

[babs57]

Martin Luther’s theology was “faith alone”. He so vehemently defended that concept, (that no “work” could bring us to salvation), that he eventually had to deny that the priesthood had any effect, because the consecration at the Eucharist is a “work”, (as are all the sacraments).
No priesthood, no Eucharist. The best he could do was to have faith that the bread and wine represent the body and blood of our Lord in a spiritual way.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Martin Luther’s theology was “faith alone”. He so vehemently defended that concept, (that no “work” could bring us to salvation), that he eventually had to deny that the priesthood had any effect, because the consecration at the Eucharist is a “work”, (as are all the sacraments).
No priesthood, no Eucharist. The best he could do was to have faith that the bread and wine represent the body and blood of our Lord in a spiritual way.

This in no way represents Martin Luther’s theology of the Eucharist.

 

[adf417]

This in no way represents Martin Luther’s theology of the Eucharist.

Agreed!

 

[Gabbanelli911]

So what is his view?

 

[Augustine3]

If the Eucharist is biblical, why do Protestants ignore it?

There are Protestants that believe in consubstantiation…

 

[PJM]

=Gabbanelli911;11814138]If the Eucharist is biblical, why do Protestants ignore it?

Most don’t “ignore it”; rather they simply don’t understand it or accept its reality, despite God Himself and Five authors of the Bible AND the immediate acceptactance of this TRUTH by the Early Church

Mt. 26: 26-28
Mk. 14: 22-24
Lk. 22: 19-21
John 6 :40- 51-58
Paul 1st Cor. 11: 23-30

John 6: 41-45 "Explains WHY this is "The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me

Because their faith opposes God’s Promises and mandates, God withholds the grace necessary for RIGHT Understanding.

**Matthew 4:4 **“Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God”

2nd. Peter 3: 14-17 “Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability

2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

That my friend is why we ought to pray for them

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[jmcrae]

Martin Luther’s theology was “faith alone”. He so vehemently defended that concept, (that no “work” could bring us to salvation), that he eventually had to deny that the priesthood had any effect, because the consecration at the Eucharist is a “work”, (as are all the sacraments).
No priesthood, no Eucharist. The best he could do was to have faith that the bread and wine represent the body and blood of our Lord in a spiritual way.

Sorry, I’m not a fan of Protestantism in general, but this is completely inaccurate.

What Martin Luther believed was that faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist saves us, and that good works are not necessary for salvation, as long as you believe in and receive the Eucharist regularly. And he certainly believed in the priesthood. (Source: A Defense of the Catholic Faith Against the Lutheran Heresy, by Henry Tudor, King of England (etc.).)

 

[SerbCath]

Protestants interpret the Bible literally only when it suits them. Jesus’ discourse about his Body and Blood is one part in which they are somehow blinded by its meaning.

To be fair here, the Bible has passages that occur in many forms. Some is poetry, some is allegory. Some is literal, other parts still are pithy statements of Truth (Proverbs).

The trick is always to know the difference. If people did that, it would go a long way toward fixing the differences.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

This in no way represents Martin Luther’s theology of the Eucharist.

Unfortunately, it’s closer to reality than you might think. The chapter on the mass in Dr. Luther’s Smalcald Articles (part of the official and biding Lutheran confessions) begins,

That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious. For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it.
bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#mass

He continues rambling on about the mass with the same incoherent vitriol for pages. For Dr. Luther, the mass is a work by which the stupid Papists attempt to merit justification. The mass is a direct contradiction of justification by faith alone (the chief article), and therefore “the most horrible abomination” ever. Even if Babs did not accurately portray Luther’s views on the real presence, she captured the essence of his thought.

Sorry, I’m not a fan of Protestantism in general, but this is completely inaccurate.

What Martin Luther believed was that faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist saves us, and that good works are not necessary for salvation, as long as you believe in and receive the Eucharist regularly. And he certainly believed in the priesthood. (Source: A Defense of the Catholic Faith Against the Lutheran Heresy, by Henry Tudor, King of England (etc.).)

My impression from the Book of Concord is that the Lutherans viewed the priesthood as a mere human institution.

 

[chero23]

There are Protestants that believe in consubstantiation…

In my opinion that’s just them trying to find a way out because the Bible makes it clear that the Eucharist is the real body and presence of God.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The doctrine of consubstantiation was put forward on philosophical grounds that the idea of accident without a subject is absurd (as if miracles are impossible for God).

Wyclif’s heretical theses concerning the Eucharist are the logical consequence of the application of this philosophical apparatus to the problem of the real presence of the body of Christ in the consecrated host. According to Catholic doctrine, after consecration the body of Christ is really present in the host instead of the substance of the host itself, while the accidents of the host are the same as before. St. Thomas’s explanation of this process, called ‘transubstantiation’, was that the substance of the bread (and wine) was changed into the body (and blood) of Christ, whereas its quantity, through which the substance of the bread received physical extension and the other accidental forms, was now the entity that kept the other accidental forms physically in being. Duns Scotus and Ockham, on the contrary, had claimed that after consecration the substance of the bread (and wine) was annihilated by God, while the accidents of the bread (and wine) remained the same as before because of an intervention of divine omnipotence.

Wyclif rejects both solutions as well as the Catholic formulation of the dogma, since he could not accept the ideas of the destruction of a substance by God and of the existence of the accidents of a given singular substance without and apart from that singular substance itself — two evident absurdities within the metaphyisical framework of his system of thought. As a consequence, Wyclif affirms the simultaneous presence in the Eucharist of the body of Crhist and of the substance of the bread (and wine), which continues to exist even after the consecration. According to him, transubstantiation is therefore a twofold process, natural and supernatural. There is natural transubstantiation when a substitution of one substantial form for another takes place, but the subject-matter remains the same. This is the case with water that becomes wine. There is supernatural transubstantiation when a miraculous transformation of the substantial entity at issue takes place. This was the case, for instance, with the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, who is God and became man (De apostasia, p. 170). The Eucharist implies this second kind of transubstantiation, since the Eucharist, like Christ, has a dual nature: earthly and divine. According to its earthly nature the Eucharist is bread (and wine), but according to its divine nature it is the body of Christ, which is present in the host spiritually or in a habitudinal fashion, since it is in virtue and by means of faith only that it could be received (De apostasia, pp. 180 and 210; De eucharistia, pp. 17, 19, 51–52, and 230; for a description of the habitudinal presence, see the definition of the habitudinal predication above, Section 2.3 – on the links between his realism and his eucharistic doctrine see P. J. J. M. Bakker, “Réalisme et rémanence. La doctrine eucharistique de Jean Wyclif,” in MT. Fumagalli Beonio Brocchieri & S. Simoneta 2003, pp. 87–112; see also Kenny 1985, pp. 68–90).
plato.stanford.edu/entries/wyclif/#4.3

If you read the Lutheran Formula of Concord, you will see they give the same reason. Other reasons given in the Lutheran confessions is that it still looks like bread and that St. Paul calls it “bread” in 1 Corinthians, as if he could not be speaking figuratively. The Lutheran doctrine was an attempt to square the real presence with the fact that they believed the substance of the bread remained.

 

[JonNC]

So what is his view?

A few tidbits:

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?

The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

And while he did not write the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, he approved of it.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

There are Protestants that believe in consubstantiation…

I don’t know of any off hand. Lutherans certainly do not. Perhaps some Anglicans, but not all by any measure.

Jon

 

[Qwikness]

I have an evangelical friend who finds it hard to believe. His latest statement of disbelief is that Jesus left the Holy Spirit when he Ascended into heaven. He is in Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. Therefore since He is in Heaven and the Holy Spirit is on Earth, it is not necessary for Jesus to be present in the Eucharist. Thus the Eucharist is merely a symbol and a memorial. I didn’t really know what to say.

 

[babs57]

Unfortunately, it’s closer to reality than you might think. The chapter on the mass in Dr. Luther’s Smalcald Articles (part of the official and biding Lutheran confessions) begins,

That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious. For it has been held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass, even though it be rendered by a wicked [and abandoned] scoundrel, frees men from sins, both in this life and also in purgatory, while only the Lamb of God shall and must do this, as has been said above. Of this article nothing is to be surrendered or conceded, because the first article does not allow it.
bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#mass

He continues rambling on about the mass with the same incoherent vitriol for pages. For Dr. Luther, the mass is a work by which the stupid Papists attempt to merit justification. The mass is a direct contradiction of justification by faith alone (the chief article), and therefore “the most horrible abomination” ever. Even if Babs did not accurately portray Luther’s views on the real presence, she captured the essence of his thought.

My impression from the Book of Concord is that the Lutherans viewed the priesthood as a mere human institution.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to, especially as regards the priesthood. Luther knew that the Mass was a sacrifice, (as he was a priest himself), and that particular offering (according to the papists) needed a priesthood, but he denied that the priesthood was biblical (sola scriptura). The best his theology could do was to say that if one believed (sola fide), then Jesus sort of *moves in *with the bread and wine. Jesus is present WITH the bread and wine, spiritually. Consubstantiation as opposed to transubstatiation. Luther viewed transubstantiation as idolatry.

 

[TimothyH]

I have an evangelical friend who finds it hard to believe. His latest statement of disbelief is that Jesus left the Holy Spirit when he Ascended into heaven. He is in Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. Therefore since He is in Heaven and the Holy Spirit is on Earth, it is not necessary for Jesus to be present in the Eucharist. Thus the Eucharist is merely a symbol and a memorial. I didn’t really know what to say.

Jesus says that he will be with us always

*Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20) *

He does not say that a symbol or memorial of him will be with us or that the Holy Spirit will take his place and be with us. Jesus says, “I will be with you.”

He was talking about himself.

-Tim-