What Churchs believe in the Real Presence besides the Catholic Church?

[Lujack]

Better to teach alcoholics they will be helped, not harmed, by the wine in Communion.

Absolutely not! It is better to teach alcoholics there is no shame in receiving in one form only, and that this is perfectly acceptable. Even one sip of alcohol can trigger a relapse in alcoholics who have chosen to abstain entirely.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

Absolutely not! It is better to teach alcoholics there is no shame in receiving in one form only, and that this is perfectly acceptable. Even one sip of alcohol can trigger a relapse in alcoholics who have chosen to abstain entirely.

You are right in your second sentence; I forgot about that option. Your last sentence is true but sadly unnecessary because the wine in Communion is special and God meant for everyone to enjoy it. As Belloc said, better to restrict oneself to drinks existing before the Reformation.

 

[JonNC]

Absolutely not! It is better to teach alcoholics there is no shame in receiving in one form only, and that this is perfectly acceptable. Even one sip of alcohol can trigger a relapse in alcoholics who have chosen to abstain entirely.

While Lutheran, I speak for myself here. It would be better for the alcoholic to receive under one kind than substitute grape juice for wine.

Jon

 

[grampben]

The founders of Protestantism all believed in the true presence as Catholics do today. For one these founders came from the Catholic church. Protestants today differ in the faith of the “True presence”. True some remember the Sacrifice of Jesus from consuming grape juice and a cracker, I speak as one who has witnessed this. Although the stronger Protestants still partake of wine and bread, some with leaven others without leaven…

Don’t know where you’re getting your history from. Not every protestant reformer beleived in the real presence. And more than one came form the catholic church originally. Zwingli was a German/Swiss contemporary of Luther, and he was the first protestant to advocate memorialism. As far as I know he was a priest (or at least a seminarian). I would link to wikipedia pages on him but for some reason (presumably bandwidth) I can’t get on. I also can’t spell his first name Just do a search for him.

Also Calvin was an original protestant reformer, he believed in a spiritual presence, but not localised in the bread and wine, I’d advise you to look it up too.

 

[JRKH]

I’m interested in exploring Catholicism for one reason only, the Eucharist. Can someone tell me what other faiths believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Thanks.

I’m sure you are getting a lot of good, but possibly confusing replies.

So far as I know, the Catholic Church, is the only one which defines the real presence as being the, “Body Blood Soul and Divinity” of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Plus the Catholic Church has the valid and documented Apostolic succession.
The only other church that you can be sure of having a valid apostolic Succesion would be the Eastern Orthodox. They to beleive in the real presence but there may be some variation in how they define it. (basically the details.)

I might also add that the Catholic Church offers the Mass and Eucharist daily everywhere. This means you can recieve Christ daily if you so choose. I’m not sure about the E.O.C.
Most non-catholic churches have services only a couple times a week and they might only have “the Lords supper” or “communion” a few times a year.

If you are seeking after the Eucharist so that you may recieve the Body and Blood of Christ into yourself, the Catholic Church or possibly the Orthodox is the way to go.

Peace
James

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I’m interested in exploring Catholicism for one reason only, the Eucharist. Can someone tell me what other faiths believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Thanks.

Guyonthestreet.

Your name reminded me of the analysis by GK Chesterton of how the average “man in the street” might view protestantism.

Even if you don’t agree with it, it is very funny and provocative:

“What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”

 

[GKC]

Guyonthestreet.

Your name reminded me of the analysis by GK Chesterton of how the average “man in the street” might view protestantism.

Even if you don’t agree with it, it is very funny and provocative:

“What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION/1926, chap II. “The Obvious Blunders”.

GKC

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION/1926, chap II. “The Obvious Blunders”.

GKC

Thanks GKC.

When do you plan to follow your namesakes example and cross the Tiber?

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC.

When do you plan to follow your namesakes example and cross the Tiber?

No one knows. It is a puzzle.

I’m currently reading a very good book on my man, and his intellectual and spiritual development, up to 1908, the time of ORTHODOXY and the point at which he had about decided to take the swim, and corrects some long -standing assumptions, found in even the best books on him. It’s based on a huge mass of documents that we Chestertonians have been aware of, since his death, and that has been used previously, in a non systematic way, in several good bios, such as Ward’s and Pearce’s. But it’s now been cataloged, professionally, and is a treasure trove. And it will likely be the source of many new, previously unpublished things, in the future. The first Ignatius volume of collected poems, done over 14 years ago, contained about half “new” poetry, for example. I’m looking over the 2nd volume now, and it’s full of stuff I’ve never seen before, too. I’ve been buying "new " Chesterton material steadily for the past few months.

Whee!

GKC

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

No one knows. It is a puzzle.

I’m currently reading a very good book on my man, and his intellectual and spiritual development, up to 1908, the time of ORTHODOXY and the point at which he had about decided to take the swim, and corrects some long -standing assumptions, found in even the best books on him. It’s based on a huge mass of documents that we Chestertonians have been aware of, since his death, and that has been used previously, in a non systematic way, in several good bios, such as Ward’s and Pearce’s. But it’s now been cataloged, professionally, and is a treasure trove. And it will likely be the source of many new, previously unpublished things, in the future. The first Ignatius volume of collected poems, done over 14 years ago, contained about half “new” poetry, for example. I’m looking over the 2nd volume now, and it’s full of stuff I’ve never seen before, too. I’ve been buying "new " Chesterton material steadily for the past few months.

Whee!

GKC

My Chesterton reading has been derailed by some books I received for Christmas.

My brother bought “Team of Rivals” for me. It’s a story about Lincoln’s competitors for the Republican nomination and how he reached out to them to form his cabinet.

It’s very interesting but also a long slow read.

 

[Roy5]

**IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT, FINE/B

For those who can believe it, fine, but I can't accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. Of course God could perform that sort of miracle. He could have had Zeus spring from Minerva's head (is that how Greek mythology goes?), but I don't believe he did.

In our age people simply are not as credulous as they were when they believed in a three-tier universe with God the Father on a huge throne in heaven and Jesus seated on his right hand. They aren't ready to accept hell deep in the earth, with unsaved sinners burning eternally in its flames. They aren't impressed when the faithful see Mary's image on a frosty window, in the bark of a tree, or on a pizza. The 'miracles' of Fatima and Lourdes don't convince millions of believing Christians who have been influenced by the scientific advances. Do we really believe that Joshua made the sun stand still? That God created languages as punishment because the people built the Tower of Babel? 

 Christianity needs to learn as well as teach. Even the Pope says that evolution may be true and that Galileo should not have been condemned.**

 

[GKC]

IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT, FINE

Other way around, forehead-wise.

GKC

 

[GKC]

My Chesterton reading has been derailed by some books I received for Christmas.

My brother bought “Team of Rivals” for me. It’s a story about Lincoln’s competitors for the Republican nomination and how he reached out to them to form his cabinet.

It’s very interesting but also a long slow read.

Sum total, all subjects, books acquired since Christmas, to date, = 120+. Two more on order, about 10 more on the to be ordered list, most of these Chestertonish.

It’s an addiction.

Wheee!

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Don’t know where you’re getting your history from. Not every protestant reformer beleived in the real presence. And more than one came form the catholic church originally. Zwingli was a German/Swiss contemporary of Luther, and he was the first protestant to advocate memorialism. As far as I know he was a priest (or at least a seminarian). I would link to wikipedia pages on him but for some reason (presumably bandwidth) I can’t get on. I also can’t spell his first name Just do a search for him.

Also Calvin was an original protestant reformer, he believed in a spiritual presence, but not localised in the bread and wine, I’d advise you to look it up too.

Gabriel of 12:
ALL the early church fathers believed in the Real presence. Even Martin Luther affirmed the doctrine. All the churches that broke away before the reformation (Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian) still believe in the real presence.

Interesting you should name Calvin, Zwingli who reformed from Martin Luther. The fact is both Calvin, Zwingli including Martin Luther all affirmed the Catholic doctrines that Mary is the Mother of God, and a Perpetual Virgin. Why dont protestants today accept their protestant founders accepted Catholic doctrines?

Maybe today like Calvin, and Zwingli protestants continue to move farther away from the Apostolic original Christian teachings which still remain in the Catholic church, thus Protestantism which seperated from the Catholic church and changed Apostolic Traditional belief’s to their own Christian inventions such as the “Sola” theories.

Your point is well taken from the OP, protestants today do not believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Although your fellow protestants will disagree with you, But Calvin, Zwingli, Lutherans, Anglicans differ in their theologies anyway as you have confirmed.

So it is only the Catholic church who still upholds the Orginal Apostolic and biblical teachings of the "TRue Presence of Jesus Christ is the Eucharist.

Thank you for confirming your continue changing christian belief’s that continue to move farther away from One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

Peace

 

[grampben]

Gabriel of 12:
ALL the early church fathers believed in the Real presence. Even Martin Luther affirmed the doctrine. All the churches that broke away before the reformation (Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian) still believe in the real presence.

Interesting you should name Calvin, Zwingli who reformed from Martin Luther. The fact is both Calvin, Zwingli including Martin Luther all affirmed the Catholic doctrines that Mary is the Mother of God, and a Perpetual Virgin. Why dont protestants today accept their protestant founders accepted Catholic doctrines?

Maybe today like Calvin, and Zwingli protestants continue to move farther away from the Apostolic original Christian teachings which still remain in the Catholic church, thus Protestantism which seperated from the Catholic church and changed Apostolic Traditional belief’s to their own Christian inventions such as the “Sola” theories.

Your point is well taken from the OP, protestants today do not believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Although your fellow protestants will disagree with you, But Calvin, Zwingli, Lutherans, Anglicans differ in their theologies anyway as you have confirmed.

So it is only the Catholic church who still upholds the Orginal Apostolic and biblical teachings of the "TRue Presence of Jesus Christ is the Eucharist.

Thank you for confirming your continue changing christian belief’s that continue to move farther away from One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

Peace

Excuse me but did I say the church fathers didn’t affirm the real presence? I did not.

You said that all protestants at the time of the reformation believed in the real presence. I showed you why that was mistaken.
Don’t put words into my mouth.

 

[BRUTEFORCE]

CRACKERS AND GRAPEJUICE?

 Okay - no need to treat fellow Christians rudely.

 Protestants actually differ. Episcopalians and Lutherans usually offer wine to communicants. Baptists, Methodists, and other 'low church' Protestants use grapejuice.

  Why? They want alcoholics to participate without anxiety. Since Protestants offer communicants both the bread and the cup, and since most congregations have at least some alcoholics, they want to make it comfortable for alcoholics to receive. In some instances, even a little alcohol could send a few alcoholics on a binge.

   Remember, also, that some of these denominations - Baptists and Methodists, for example - have long traditions of total temperance. While this idea may not be as strong today, the idea still persists that it's wisest to avoid alcohol altogether. That's a sure way of escaping alcoholism. And even though alcohol is treated lightly in today's society, it is a drug that contributes heavily to traffic deaths, spousal abuse and other crimes, failed marriages, poverty, and other social blights. 

   Now, while a few Protestant churches use matzos (crackers) as bread - unleavened - most use regular bread off the store shelves or even the same wafers (easy to keep and store) that are used to Catholic churches.

    Again, all Protestants believe in the 'real presence' of Christ in that he is present in all worship settings (Matt. 28:20) and everywhere else. The difference is that they reject the teaching that a prayer of consecration by a priest changes bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus. That may have been a comfortable doctrine centuries ago, when most people were ready to accept a whole variety of superstitions, but for most Protestants (and millions of Catholics - believe me) in our modern world it simply is unbelievable. Sorry, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but what I say here is true. But for those who can believe it, I respect you as much as I can't agree with you.

Thank you for your explanation and your respect. two things though, first I am an alchoholic and as a Catholic alchoholic i know a great deal of people who are in my position. one of the ‘perks’ i guess you could say, of the true presence of our lord’s flesh and blood in our sacramental Eucharist, is the grace and protection that surrounds it, in that in its reception one who struggles with a compulsion to drink, feels no ill effects on their sobriety. this is miraculous and a testament to the truth OF the real presence, that a man such as myself, who is instantly drawn back deep into obsessive addiction at merely a sip of wine anywhere else in the world, can partake of the Blood daily and not so much as think of the connection to their addiction. true it would be dangerous, very dangerous for a protestant church to hand a glass of unchanged wine to a drunk and send him on his way, but this is not the case within our hallowed walls. Second, the greatest minds of the post enlightened age, free of the ‘superstition’ you speak of have been the type of Roman Catholics who DO believe and understand the true presence. the reason for the (millions of Catholics-believe me) is their own apathy towards God, and with regard to learning the faith that they have been gifted so graciously. it is NOT that they have studied the matter dutifully, and found the data not to support the true presence, it IS that they just never did the work. American Catholics are NOT on the cutting edge of thought with regards to things holy, we for the most part have fallen far far far from this and have become a very ignorant race of barely even cultural catholics. if you would respect us as you say you do, then please don’t judge the truths of our Church, based on the faith of only the most spiritually crippled among us.

God bless you and thank you for this productive discussion.

 

[James_Trevor]

I’ll try to stay on OP’s topic…

In our age people simply are not as credulous as they were when they believed in a three-tier universe with God the Father on a huge throne in heaven and Jesus seated on his right hand.

Millions of people still believe in the Trinity and Heaven, you sound as if you think it’s wild fantasy yet it says you yourself are Christian?

They aren’t ready to accept hell deep in the earth, with unsaved sinners burning eternally in its flames.

Is that in the Bible? Hell is described with fire yes. But it is to be interpreted as a spiritual plane, not an earthly location.

They aren’t impressed when the faithful see Mary’s image on a frosty window, in the bark of a tree, or on a pizza. The ‘miracles’ of Fatima and Lourdes don’t convince millions of believing Christians who have been influenced by the scientific advances.

70,000+ actually witnessed the miracles. Many more have been converted since. I just don’t understand the illogical separation of science and God that is rampant among the less traditional Protestant religions, just because someone believes in God doesn’t mean that you can’t believe the earth is round. Which leads me to…

Do we really believe that Joshua made the sun stand still? That God created languages as punishment because the people built the Tower of Babel?

 Christianity needs to learn as well as teach. **Even the Pope says that evolution may be true and that Galileo should not have been condemned**.

Look up more info on the emboldened, I should talk about the Eucharist now.

OP - I recommend looking up consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation and valid holy orders, this will make or break a valid Eucharist. Mainline Protestants believe in the True Presence, but disagree on the process and holy orders. The Orthodox Church might be of interest to you. I will pray for your journey! God Bless!