"To Whom Shall We Go? Why the Catholic Eucharist?"

[allofgrace]

On another thread the question was asked as to how Protestants get around John Chapter 6 and I Corinthians 11 as to Holy Communion.

The Church believed exactly as Jesus and St. Paul taught it in those two passages of scripture but Martin Luther didn’t like Transubstantiation. He had gotten an education and was enamoured with the intellectual aspects of theology. He was an adherent to the thought of William of Ockam who said that everything should be simplified (that’s a very basic explanation of Ockam’s Razor). Men were “thinking outside the box” in those days and proud of it. As one person said to me, “the people that conservative Protestants (Evangelicals/Fundamentalists)follow today are the liberals of their day” - for the most part that is true.

In another post I will give the actual statement of Luther as to how he departed from Transubstantiation and invented Con (with) Substantiation which is the Lutheran position.

Calvin, however, didn’t accept Luther’s position and he took it farther - Jesus was only SPIRITUALY PRESENT in Holy Communion - not in any way physically. Calvin’s followers (loosely) are Presbyterians and those who hold to predestination. Baptists depending on how strict they are hold to Calvin but with their own spins. It boils down to symbolism or receptionism (what you believe is what you get) It goes back to one of the kingpins on which the Reformation stands or falls - “sola fide`” - by faith ALONE.

Zwingli (Reformed Churches) took it even farther - he said that it was strictly
a memorial, totally symbolic. What it boils down to is that we look back to Jesus who way back in the day, died for us and rose again and we remember that and drink to it. I look back at my own Reformed Church and think of it as kind of a spiritual toast to Jesus.

As to HOW Protestants get around John 6 and I Corinthians 11, that will be in another post for the sake of brevity…

 

[Mannyfit75]

On another thread the question was asked as to how Protestants get around John Chapter 6 and I Corinthians 11 as to Holy Communion.

The Church believed exactly as Jesus and St. Paul taught it in those two passages of scripture but Martin Luther didn’t like Transubstantiation. He had gotten an education and was enamoured with the intellectual aspects of theology. He was an adherent to the thought of William of Ockam who said that everything should be simplified (that’s a very basic explanation of Ockam’s Razor). Men were “thinking outside the box” in those days and proud of it. As one person said to me, “the people that conservative Protestants (Evangelicals/Fundamentalists)follow today are the liberals of their day” - for the most part that is true.

In another post I will give the actual statement of Luther as to how he departed from Transubstantiation and invented Con (with) Substantiation which is the Lutheran position.

Calvin, however, didn’t accept Luther’s position and he took it farther - Jesus was only SPIRITUALY PRESENT in Holy Communion - not in any way physically. Calvin’s followers (loosely) are Presbyterians and those who hold to predestination. Baptists depending on how strict they are hold to Calvin but with their own spins. It boils down to symbolism or receptionism (what you believe is what you get) It goes back to one of the kingpins on which the Reformation stands or falls - “sola fide`” - by faith ALONE.

Zwingli (Reformed Churches) took it even farther - he said that it was strictly
a memorial, totally symbolic. What it boils down to is that we look back to Jesus who way back in the day, died for us and rose again and we remember that and drink to it. I look back at my own Reformed Church and think of it as kind of a spiritual toast to Jesus.

As to HOW Protestants get around John 6 and I Corinthians 11, that will be in another post for the sake of brevity…

Most of them (not all) will just say Holy Eucharist as mere symbolism, or dismiss the passage of its true content. I think they should research this further by learning the early writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp) and the Early Church Fathers on this regard. I have run into Non-Catholic Protestant Christians who claim St. Augustine think it was representation and therefore put his Augustine’s writings out of context. I have read other writings of St. Augustine that says confirms Real Presence.

 

[BrewMax]

Most of them (not all) will just say Holy Eucharist as mere symbolism, or dismiss the passage of its true content. I think they should research this further by learning the early writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp) and the Early Church Fathers on this regard. I have run into Non-Catholic Protestant Christians who claim St. Augustine think it was representation and therefore put his Augustine’s writings out of context. I have read other writings of St. Augustine that says confirms Real Presence.

I know some Catholics who laugh at the idea of the wafer and the wine as being real flesh and blood let alone Protestants not thinking it is.

 

[rlg94086]

I know some Catholics who laugh at the idea of the wafer and the wine as being real flesh and blood let alone Protestants not thinking it is.

And? Individual Catholic’s misunderstandings and/or heretical beliefs are not a reflection of the clear teaching of the Church.

 

[BrewMax]

And? Individual Catholic’s misunderstandings and/or heretical beliefs are not a reflection of the clear teaching of the Church.

It doesn’t seem to me that the church has done a good job of teaching this very important truth though. I know more Episcopalians that take communion seriously than Catholics, honestly.

 

[YADA]

I know some Catholics who laugh at the idea of the wafer and the wine as being real flesh and blood let alone Protestants not thinking it is.

The fact that there are some catholics who have lost faith, are ignorant of church teachings or for some other reasons do not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist [against 2000 years of Christian thought and practice] proves what?

What about the positions of the reformers as posted?

Purhaps there are catholics who have been persuaded by the protestant followers of these reformers…

Jesus said to not lead astray his children for to do such …it would be better that you not have been born…

I’ll stick with the churches instruction and trust in the promises of Jesus…“unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood …you have no life within you”

 

[BrewMax]

The fact that there are some catholics who have lost faith, are ignorant of church teachings or for some other reasons do not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist [against 2000 years of Christian thought and practice] proves what?

What about the positions of the reformers as posted?

Purhaps there are catholics who have been persuaded by the protestant followers of these reformers…

Jesus said to not lead astray his children for to do such …it would be better that you not have been born…

I’ll stick with the churches instruction and trust in the promises of Jesus…“unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood …you have no life within you”

Do this for the remembrance of me.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Do this for the remembrance of me.

remembrance = anamnesis in the Greek, means something a little more profound than just thinking about Jesus while you’re eating some bread and drinking some wine. Jesus says, “This IS My Body…This IS My Blood” not “this represents/symbolizes/ought to make you think of My Body and Blood.”

 

[BrewMax]

remembrance = anamnesis in the Greek, means something a little more profound than just thinking about Jesus while you’re eating some bread and drinking some wine. Jesus says, “This IS My Body…This IS My Blood” not “this represents/symbolizes/ought to make you think of My Body and Blood.”

I agree

 

[allofgrace]

And? Individual Catholic’s misunderstandings and/or heretical beliefs are not a reflection of the clear teaching of the Church.

YES! There is a huge difference between Protestants who are encouraged to private interpretation of scriptures and a clergy who have no real backup and the Catholic Church with the Apostolic Deposit of Faith and the Magisterium. There are many Catholics who don’t adhere to Catholic beliefs and are Catholics in NAME ONLY but that does not change THE FAITH one iota.

 

[allofgrace]

It doesn’t seem to me that the church has done a good job of teaching this very important truth though. I know more Episcopalians that take communion seriously than Catholics, honestly.

I was an Episcopalian for over a decade and know the ins and outs of high church and low church, narrow and broad, etc, etc. HOWEVER, read the 39 Articles and you will see that that document denies that Holy Communion is actually the body and blood of Christ. Any individual Episcopalian can form his or her own belief about it but NOT the “Romish doctrine” of Transubstantiation.

 

[allofgrace]

Do this for the remembrance of me.

The Jewish REMEMBRANCE is far more than looking back and acknowledging - it means to MAKE PRESENT NOW - TO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE. Just as today’s Jews don’t look back and REMEMBER Passover but they are actually part of that Passsover that was eaten by Moses, Aaron, etc, etc.

“Why is THIS NIGHT not like other nights” is the wording at the Seder.

 

[BrewMax]

I was an Episcopalian for over a decade and know the ins and outs of high church and low church, narrow and broad, etc, etc. HOWEVER, read the 39 Articles and you will see that that document denies that Holy Communion is actually the body and blood of Christ. Any individual Episcopalian can form his or her own belief about it but NOT the “Romish doctrine” of Transubstantiation.

One can believe in the real presence without believing in transubstantiation. A pastor once told me that transubstantiation was a fictional way to try and make people believe that you can make Christ appear like a magician can make a rabbit appear out of a hat. He said that this is a true heresy.

 

[GKC]

I was an Episcopalian for over a decade and know the ins and outs of high church and low church, narrow and broad, etc, etc. HOWEVER, read the 39 Articles and you will see that that document denies that Holy Communion is actually the body and blood of Christ. Any individual Episcopalian can form his or her own belief about it but NOT the “Romish doctrine” of Transubstantiation.

And, with the exception (theoretically) of Church of England ordinands, and (I think) members of the Anglican Church of Ruwanda, any Anglican can form their own opinion of the 39 Articles, which are not a form of Anglican confession.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

One can believe in the real presence without believing in transubstantiation. A pastor once told me that transubstantiation was a fictional way to try and make people believe that you can make Christ appear like a magician can make a rabbit appear out of a hat. He said that this is a true heresy.

Certaainly, your first sentence is accurate. Or, an Anglican can believe that transubstantiation is as good an explanation of the “how” of the Real Presence as one is going to get.

GKC

 

[rr1213]

One can believe in the real presence without believing in transubstantiation.

Sure, the Lutherans do it every week…Christ’s body and blood are really and truly present in a sacramental union with the bread and wine…“in, with and under” the elements.

 

[allofgrace]

Martin Luther took it upon himself to CHANGE what the Church had believed for 1500 plus years in a number of things but I will put up here his “reasoning” on the change he made to Holy Communion.

In the initial post I stated that Luther was enamoured with the intellectual arguments of William of Ockam. In Luther’s “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” he wrote the following:

"Years ago, when I was delving into scholastic theology the Cardinal of Cambray (Pierre d’Ailly, a disciple of Wm of Ockam) gave me food for thought in his comments on the fourth book of the Sentences (The Sentences of Peter Lombard, a book of Medieval theology).

In the book of the Sentences he (Cardinal d’aILLY) argues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not their accidents only, are present on the altar,
IS MUCH MORE PROBABLE AND REQUIRES FEWER UNNECESSARY MIRACLES – if only the Church had not decreed otherwise.

Luther goes on to state, "When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this — namely the Church of Thomas (Aquinas), i.e. of Aristotle — I WAXED BOLDER AND AFTER FLOATING IN A SEA OF DOUBTat last found rest for my conscience in the above view —, namely, that it is real bread and real wine in which Christ’s real flesh and blood are present, not otherwise and not less really than they assume to be the case under their accidents.

**I REACHED THIS CONCLUSION BECAUSE I SAW **THAT THE OPINIONS OF THE THOMISTS, though approved by pope and council, remain but opinions and do not become articles of faith even though an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise.

For what is approved without Scripture or an approved revelation, may be held as an opinion but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas (Aquinas) hangs so completely in the air, devoid of Scripture and reason that he seems here to have forgotten both his philosophy and his logic." (End of Luther’s claim as to how he came to deny Transubstantiation and invent CON (with) Substantiation - the Lutheran belief regarding Holy Communion).

You can read it in Luther’s “Babylonian Captivity of the Church.”

I ask you a question. What sort of basis is this to deny the 1500 year belief of the Church and what sort of arrogance does it take to think that you can go against “the pillar and ground of the truth?”

Again I ask; what would happen if a Catholic pope set forth a doctrine on this sort of reasoning? We’d never hear the end of it.

More on this in another post…

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The Jewish REMEMBRANCE is far more than looking back and acknowledging - it means to MAKE PRESENT NOW - TO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE. Just as today’s Jews don’t look back and REMEMBER Passover but they are actually part of that Passsover that was eaten by Moses, Aaron, etc, etc.

“Why is THIS NIGHT not like other nights” is the wording at the Seder.

Thank you for posting this - I knew I’d read something (likely in Scott Hahn’s book, The Lamb’s Supper) about that.

When we go to Mass, we are participating with the angels and saints in their never-ending worship in Heaven. The Mass is Heaven on earth - you don’t get that at your local Protestant church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It doesn’t seem to me that the church has done a good job of teaching this very important truth though. I know more Episcopalians that take communion seriously than Catholics, honestly.

And you are telling me, devout Catholics who practice their faith don’t? Do you assume to know the hearts and minds of Catholics who go to Mass?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I know some Catholics who laugh at the idea of the wafer and the wine as being real flesh and blood let alone Protestants not thinking it is.

First of all, we don’t call it wafer. I never use the term. I think that is an American Protestant term that distort the Sacredness of the Holy Eucharist.

The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. I have also heard from priests that many Catholic youngs today seek to attend Eucharistic Adoration. If you claim that some Catholics (perhaps few) don’t take their faith seriously, they find themselves at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I would be careful not to put humor in this serious subject. To me it is offensive.