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

[Kitty_Chan]

from Scripture that both the bread and wine and the body and blood were present in the consecrated host, so the Lutheran understanding of the sacramental union.

Is this what the Lutherans believe now or is it old.

and if so who else believes it? if you know?

So its symbolic and bread/wine and flesh/blood ??

is this correct?

 

[BrewMax]

No, there is no deception. First, the quotation is from the Luther’s Small Catechism which was written for the use of fathers to teach their children. As a learning device for children, it was not intended to be all encompassing. You can find a much more in depth discussion of the Sacrament of the Altar in the Large Cathechism.

Second, even in the Small Catechism, Luther was not asserting that the Gospels are the only place where the Eucharist is addressed in Scripture. Why do I say that? Because it is obviously addressed in many other places of Scripture–most especially Corinthians–and, if nothing else, Luther was familiar with Scripture.

Why do I say that the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist is more true to Scripture than the Catholic model of transubstantiation? Because of the testimony of 1 Corinthians 11:26–“whenever you eat this BREAD and drink this CUP, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”–which tell us that the bread and wine remain in the Sacrament…not just their “accidents”.

I agree. The belief in the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ is expressed in Scripture plainly. Transubstantiation is a whole separate idea which has NO basis in Scripture. That’s the difference. Contrary to Catholicism, one does NOT have to believe in transubstantiation to believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I agree. The belief in the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ is expressed in Scripture plainly. Transubstantiation is a whole separate idea which has NO basis in Scripture. That’s the difference. Contrary to Catholicism, one does NOT have to believe in transubstantiation to believe in the Real Presence.

Oh please! Max.

Transubstantiation is completely based on Scripture. Transubstantiation states that unleaven bread and wine once consecrated by the priest at the sacred alter is no longer bread, but is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist becomes Jesus Christ Himself.

The appearance does appear as bread and wine. This is consistent with the Gospel of John 6:51-60

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my** flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.** 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

It seem to me that you think Transubstantiation denies the existence or Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. It isn’t. The doctrine affirms Real Presence. That is pretty clear.

 

[BrewMax]

Oh please! Max.

Transubstantiation is completely based on Scripture. Transubstantiation states that unleaven bread and wine once consecrated by the priest at the sacred alter is no longer bread, but is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist becomes Jesus Christ Himself.

The appearance does appear as bread and wine. This is consistent with the Gospel of John 6:51-60

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my** flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.** 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

It seem to me that you think Transubstantiation denies the existence or Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. It isn’t. The doctrine affirms Real Presence. That is pretty clear.

This is just Catholic antics.
Show me in Scripture where the bread and wine need to be changed into the body and blood of Christ by way of transubstantiation and only Catholics and Orthodox can do it and where it specifically prohibits Protestants from having it. Jesus doesn’t exclude anyone who isn’t Catholic. That’s ridiculous.

 

[allofgrace]

This is just Catholic antics.
Show me in Scripture where the bread and wine need to be changed into the body and blood of Christ by way of transubstantiation and only Catholics and Orthodox can do it and where it specifically prohibits Protestants from having it. Jesus doesn’t exclude anyone who isn’t Catholic. That’s ridiculous.

It is ridiculous if you BEGIN with a PREMISE and heap scriptures to “proof text” it but it is not ridiculous when you use scripture in its fullness. Earlier I showed the following from Martin Luther’s Small CAtechism and I show it here again. I hope there are still some Catholics present who will take this up.

Luther’s Catechism gives the following
THE INSTITUTION OF HOLY COMMUNION

1. 
   First: What is the sacrament of Holy Communion?
   

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

   • 
     Where is this written?
     

     The holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke,

     and the Apostle Paul tell us: Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

     This is Luther’s full answer as to where Holy Communion is written in the Scriptures.
     
     **Luther deliberately EXCLUDED John Chapter 6 from his teaching. He used a PORTION of I Corinthians Chapter 11 but left out the part that teaches the full truth which disagrees with his own teaching on it.
     **
     
     Luther excluded Jesus primary teaching on the Eucharist in John Chapter 6 in which He reiterates that YOU MUST eat my flesh and drink my blood; my flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL DRINK. He makes that point stronger and stronger as the Jews question it. He NEVER backs down and He is willing that even the 12 would leave Him rather than that He compromise THE TRUTH. Protestants deny this but in this they follow their father, Luther - as I’ve said, I was Protestant for 54 years.
     
     This is the portion where Luther states in his Catechism, "the Apostle Paul tell us: Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
     
     Then he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” He is quoting St. Paul in I Corinthians 11: 23b-25 and he leaves out the portion where St. Paul gives warning. It didn’t serve Luther’s purpose so he truncated it.
     
     Let’s read the part LUTHER LEFT OUT!
     
     I Corninthians 23a: For I (Paul) received FROM THE LORD WHAT I ALSO DELIVERED TO YOU. (Luther uses 23b-25)
     
     I Corinthians 26 "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, YOU PROCLAIM THE LORD’S DEATH UNTIL HE COMES.
     
     I Corinthians 27 continues “WHOEVER, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord IN AN UNWORTHY MANNER will be GUILTY OF PROFAINING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. 28 “Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” 29 **For anyone who eats and drinks WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY EATS AND DRINKS TO HIS OWN DAMNATION.” That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died. **
     
     How, may I ask, does one eat and drink damnation to himself for not DISCERNING THE BODY if there is no body to discern? The Catholic Church uses ALL OF THE SCRIPTURE and not just a smorgasbord helping of it to substantiate the doctrine.
     
     Furthermore, it is for the protection of those who do not know the doctrine and therefore do not discern the body that the Catholic Church denies Holy Communion to Protestants who DENY THE BODY IS PRESENT. It is not a mean-spirited thing; it is a kindness and a duty which the Church takes seriously.
     The BIBLICAL stance on Holy Communion is the Catholic CHurch’s stance.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is just Catholic antics.
Show me in Scripture where the bread and wine need to be changed into the body and blood of Christ by way of transubstantiation and only Catholics and Orthodox can do it and where it specifically prohibits Protestants from having it. Jesus doesn’t exclude anyone who isn’t Catholic. That’s ridiculous.

I already have but you just ignore the passage in John 6:51-60.

I have others. St. Paul.

1 Cor 11:21-30.

21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body

, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be** guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord**. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

I also like to note that the Catholic Church recognizes the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They also believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. They may not use the term transubstantiation but they believe the leaven bread at Holy Communion is Jesus Christ, much like the Catholic Church do. The Orthodox have it because they have valid sacraments. Valid Holy Orders.

However, Protestants have cut themselves off from the Apostolic line during the Reformation. They have no priesthood. Even those in the Anglican Church and Lutheran, their Holy Orders are not valid.

The Head of the Church of England is the Queen. Queens or their monarchy doesn’t have valid Apostolic Succession. Lutheran don’t have it because none of them lack bishops. Martin Luther himself was a monk, and the time I check only bishops can ordain priests.

Invalid Holy Orders, there is no Eucharist, no Real Presence. Because it is the priests and the bishops who can consecrate and can turn the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of the Lord.

This is historical facts. Had the Reformers not break with Rome and remain in communion with the Holy See, they would have valid sacraments. Except, the Reformation did away with the sacraments and only keep two, baptism and communion but degraded it by making new doctrine that Jesus presence is merely symbolic.

There is no **Real Presence in the Protestant Holy Communion **because they have **no Apostolic Succession **or Holy Orders dating back to the time of the Apostles.

 

[GKC]

Manny,

“The Head of the Church of England is the Queen. Queens or their monarchy doesn’t have valid Apostolic Succession.”

The monarch being the titular head of the Church of England has nothing to do with the RCC judgement on Anglican orders. See Leo XIII’s Apostoliaae Curae. It’s a matter of form and intent in the ordination rite in the Edwardine Ordinal. As seen by the RCC, according to AC. Anglicans have another view of the matter. So to speak.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny,

“The Head of the Church of England is the Queen. Queens or their monarchy doesn’t have valid Apostolic Succession.”

The monarch being the titular head of the Church of England has nothing to do with the RCC judgement on Anglican orders. See Leo XIII’s Apostoliaae Curae. It’s a matter of form and intent in the ordination rite in the Edwardine Ordinal. As seen by the RCC, according to AC. Anglicans have another view of the matter. So to speak.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

I have read the Apostoliaae Curae. I just point that in my opinion the separation of Church of England and Rome, and having the monoarchy as it’s head also invalid their sacraments. Pope Leo XIII’s Apostoliaae is more specific than these.

 

[GKC]

I have read the Apostoliaae Curae. I just point that in my opinion the separation of Church of England and Rome, and having the monoarchy as it’s head also invalid their sacraments. Pope Leo XIII’s Apostoliaae is more specific than these.

It’s not only more specific, it’s completely different. The RCC doesn’t share your opinion. It’s intent and form, in the ordination rite. That’s it.

GKC

 

[Mannyfit75]

It’s not only more specific, it’s completely different. The RCC doesn’t share your opinion. It’s intent and form, in the ordination rite. That’s it.

GKC

The Church doesn’t that is why I said it’s my opinion.

 

[GKC]

The Church doesn’t that is why I said it’s my opinion.

I certainly wouldn’t argue with you over your opinion.

GKC

 

[BrewMax]

It is ridiculous if you BEGIN with a PREMISE and heap scriptures to “proof text” it but it is not ridiculous when you use scripture in its fullness. Earlier I showed the following from Martin Luther’s Small CAtechism and I show it here again. I hope there are still some Catholics present who will take this up.
This is Luther’s full answer as to where Holy Communion is written in the Scriptures.

**Luther deliberately EXCLUDED John Chapter 6 from his teaching. He used a PORTION of I Corinthians Chapter 11 but left out the part that teaches the full truth which disagrees with his own teaching on it.

---

Luther excluded Jesus primary teaching on the Eucharist in John Chapter 6 in which He reiterates that YOU MUST eat my flesh and drink my blood; my flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL DRINK. He makes that point stronger and stronger as the Jews question it. He NEVER backs down and He is willing that even the 12 would leave Him rather than that He compromise THE TRUTH. Protestants deny this but in this they follow their father, Luther - as I’ve said, I was Protestant for 54 years.

This is the portion where Luther states in his Catechism, "the Apostle Paul tell us: Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

Then he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” He is quoting St. Paul in I Corinthians 11: 23b-25 and he leaves out the portion where St. Paul gives warning. It didn’t serve Luther’s purpose so he truncated it.

Let’s read the part LUTHER LEFT OUT!

I Corninthians 23a: For I (Paul) received FROM THE LORD WHAT I ALSO DELIVERED TO YOU. (Luther uses 23b-25)

I Corinthians 26 "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, YOU PROCLAIM THE LORD’S DEATH UNTIL HE COMES.

I Corinthians 27 continues “WHOEVER, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord IN AN UNWORTHY MANNER will be GUILTY OF PROFAINING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. 28 “Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” 29 **For anyone who eats and drinks WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY EATS AND DRINKS TO HIS OWN DAMNATION.” That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died. **

How, may I ask, does one eat and drink damnation to himself for not DISCERNING THE BODY if there is no body to discern? The Catholic Church uses ALL OF THE SCRIPTURE and not just a smorgasbord helping of it to substantiate the doctrine.

Furthermore, it is for the protection of those who do not know the doctrine and therefore do not discern the body that the Catholic Church denies Holy Communion to Protestants who DENY THE BODY IS PRESENT. It is not a mean-spirited thing; it is a kindness and a duty which the Church takes seriously.
The BIBLICAL stance on Holy Communion is the Catholic CHurch’s stance.

baloney…

 

[allofgrace]

baloney…

Brilliant refutation - Nevertheless, the facts speak for themselves.

 

[BrewMax]

I already have but you just ignore the passage in John 6:51-60.

I have others. St. Paul.

1 Cor 11:21-30.

I also like to note that the Catholic Church recognizes the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They also believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. They may not use the term transubstantiation but they believe the leaven bread at Holy Communion is Jesus Christ, much like the Catholic Church do. The Orthodox have it because they have valid sacraments. Valid Holy Orders.

However, Protestants have cut themselves off from the Apostolic line during the Reformation. They have no priesthood. Even those in the Anglican Church and Lutheran, their Holy Orders are not valid.

The Head of the Church of England is the Queen. Queens or their monarchy doesn’t have valid Apostolic Succession. Lutheran don’t have it because none of them lack bishops. Martin Luther himself was a monk, and the time I check only bishops can ordain priests.

Invalid Holy Orders, there is no Eucharist, no Real Presence. Because it is the priests and the bishops who can consecrate and can turn the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of the Lord.

This is historical facts. Had the Reformers not break with Rome and remain in communion with the Holy See, they would have valid sacraments. Except, the Reformation did away with the sacraments and only keep two, baptism and communion but degraded it by making new doctrine that Jesus presence is merely symbolic.

There is no **Real Presence in the Protestant Holy Communion **because they have **no Apostolic Succession **or Holy Orders dating back to the time of the Apostles.

Jesus would not agree.

 

[Tonks40]

Jesus would not agree.

How do you know?

I can understand why this would be hard to accept for you. The disciples who had a hard time believing what Christ said in John 6 had the same difficulties - that why they walked away.

 

[agangbern]

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.

That Pastor was misleading. No one makes Christ a magician. It is Christ Himself who makes the bread his flesh. Who would prevent him from doing what he wills? During the days that the Israelites journeyed in the desert, Christ followed them and He was in the form of a rock. Magic? No. Not at all. He simply willed it that way.

 

[po18guy]

This is just Catholic antics.
Show me in Scripture where the bread and wine need to be changed into the body and blood of Christ by way of transubstantiation and only Catholics and Orthodox can do it and where it specifically prohibits Protestants from having it. Jesus doesn’t exclude anyone who isn’t Catholic. That’s ridiculous.

So, Christ really fooled them, huh? All twelve of the Apostles got it wrong. Paul got it wrong. All of the early church fathers got it wrong. 1,974 years of Christians all got it wrong. Apparently, even Christ got it wrong, because he didn’t correct them before He ascended.

FAITH! FAITH! FAITH! is all we ever hear is necessary for salvation. But the moment we have FAITH that it actually IS the Body and Blood of Christ, we’re the ones that are all screwed up.

Oh, those of much bible and little faith!

 

[allofgrace]

So, Christ really fooled them, huh? All twelve of the Apostles got it wrong. Paul got it wrong. All of the early church fathers got it wrong. 1,974 years of Christians all got it wrong. Apparently, even Christ got it wrong, because he didn’t correct them before He ascended.

FAITH! FAITH! FAITH! is all we ever hear is necessary for salvation. But the moment we have FAITH that it actually IS the Body and Blood of Christ, we’re the ones that are all screwed up.

Oh, those of much bible and little faith!

Thank you for this post - great analysis. This is why I insist that Catholics are the REAL BIBLE-BELIEVERS and those who insist on Sola Scriptura and call themselves “bible-believers” don’t really believe the Bible but like their father Luther, believe WHAT THEY MAKE of the Bible.

I can say that because I was one of them and did that very thing until, back in 1979, I began to realize that when we do that we are making our own gods - the same as those who take a piece of wood and carve out a domesticated deity that we can live with. We started with man made Protestant Tradition (sola scriptura, sola fide, symbols and ordinances) and through private interpretation set up our own religion.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus would not agree.

Ah, but my friend he does. Let me use my His own words.
**
51I am the living bread which came down from heaven**. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever

Matthew 14: 26

26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:21-24

21 And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born. 22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. 23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.Luke 22:19-20

Luke 22:19-20
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Jesus disagreeing with me? I hardly so. He agrees with me very much. History also so that the Real Presence was common or general belief that Early Christians had. St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD said in a Letter to the Smyrnaeans. St. Ignatius is the disciple of St. John, the Apostle, who was taught by Jesus Christ himself.

This what Ignatius said regarding the Eucharist.
Chapter 7:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ

, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Well, if you think Ignatius is wrong about the Real Presence then you might as well tell the Apostle John that he taught Ignatius erroneous doctrine. I may even go as far that Jesus taught John error of the Real Presence.

My friend. The Eucharist when consecrated at the Sacred Alter does become the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Deny this, you deny the teaching of Jesus Christ.