What Do Non-cathloics Have To Say About These Verse The Ones That Believe In The Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bill_Pick

Guest
Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted 1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ’s body & blood 1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten Jn 1:29 - Jesus called “Lamb of God” 1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food 1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what “the flesh” means in Jn 6:63 Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 -to symbolically eat & drink one’s body & blood = assault
 
Belief in the Real Presence is a universal and perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, that is to say, she has taught it everywhere and always, from her birth from the pierce side of our Lord down to the present day. No Christian denied it in the first millennium. Only in the eleventh century did anyone at all deny it. The Church immediately responded by reaffirming the perennial teaching by defending what she had received from the Lord. It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation fifteen centuries after Christ’s death that rejection of the Real Presence gained a following of any significance. The Holy Spirit has protected the majority of the world’s believers (Catholics and Orthodox) from error in this matter. (It is also worthwhile noting that not all Protestants deny the Real Presence.)
 
You presume all non-catholics do not believe in the real presence.
 
grampben said:
You presume all non-catholics do not believe in the real presence.
Click to expand...
They don’t. If they did they would have a Tabernacle to keep the Eucharist in. Their definition of “real presence” is completely different than that of the Catholic Church.
 
Our_Refuge said:
They don’t. If they did they would have a Tabernacle to keep the Eucharist in. Their definition of “real presence” is completely different than that of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The issue was real presence, not transubstantiation. Lutherans believe Christ is truly present, but define that it happens through ‘sacramental union’ and not transubstantiation.
 
grampben said:
You presume all non-catholics do not believe in the real presence.
Click to expand...
This brings up another question; what do Protestants who deny the real presence think about other Protestants that believe in the real presence?

God bless
 
JonNC said:
They think we’re as wrong as you are. They’re wrong, we’re right, and so are you.

Jon
Click to expand...
JonNC

You need to convince them to stop following their, “traditions of men” 👍

I think you guys are a serious thorn in the Evangelical side because you are 1) Protestant and 2) believe in Sola Scripture and yet despite this you adhere to the literal interpretation of John 6.

God bless
 
Roman_Catholic said:
This brings up another question; what do Protestants who deny the real presence think about other Protestants that believe in the real presence?

God bless
Click to expand...
Generally they hold them in similar regard. Perhaps the ultra-evangelical fundamentalist churches disapprove, but generally presbyterians, baptists and anglicans (where I’m from) all have mutual respect for each other, each of the 3 having a different eucharistic view.
Most protestants who believe in the real presence don’t believe in transubstantiation.
 
Roman_Catholic said:
JonNC

You need to convince them to stop following their, “traditions of men” 👍

I think you guys are a serious thorn in the Evangelical side because you are 1) Protestant and 2) believe in Sola Scripture and yet despite this you adhere to the literal interpretation of John 6.

God bless
Click to expand...
It is not despite sola scriptura that Lutherans believe in the real presence. A Lutheran could say it is because of our view that scripture is the final norm of the post-apostolic era that we believe in the real presence. The literal language of Christ in the accounts of the Last Supper, followed by Paul’s teachings on it, is, to us, undeniable. Whether or not one sees John 6 as literal or figurative, it clearly points to the literal words of Christ, “This is my body”.

I might also add that the ECF’s also believed this, as well as most Christians from the earlist Church and through the centuries.

Jon
 
grampben said:
Generally they hold them in similar regard. Perhaps the ultra-evangelical fundamentalist churches disapprove, but generally presbyterians, baptists and anglicans (where I’m from) all have mutual respect for each other, each of the 3 having a different eucharistic view.
Most protestants who believe in the real presence don’t believe in transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure about many Baptists.

As for transubstantiation, my only feelings about this teaching are,
  1. Even if it is right, it seems to me presumptuous to try to describe this mystery, particularly using Aristotelian language. But then, I often feel the same way about “sacramental union”. Had the Lutheran reformers simply left it at the words of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, it would have been much better.
  2. As it is a mystery, scripture is not explicit about it in this way,
    and the conscience of a Christian ought not be bound to believe it.
Jon
 
JonNC said:
I’m not so sure about many Baptists.

As for transubstantiation, my only feelings about this teaching are,
  1. Even if it is right, it seems to me presumptuous to try to describe this mystery, particularly using Aristotelian language. But then, I often feel the same way about “sacramental union”. Had the Lutheran reformers simply left it at the words of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, it would have been much better.
  2. As it is a mystery, scripture is not explicit about it in this way,
    and the conscience of a Christian ought not be bound to believe it.
Jon
Click to expand...
Agreed. Strangely my biggest problem with Catholic eucharistic theology is the parading of the sacrament on corpus christi and adoration. Jesus said ‘take and eat’ his body, not ‘take and worship’.
 
BILL PICK said:
Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted 1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ’s body & blood 1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten Jn 1:29 - Jesus called “Lamb of God” 1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food 1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what “the flesh” means in Jn 6:63 Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 -to symbolically eat & drink one’s body & blood = assault
Click to expand...
Gee Jimmy hmmm I mean Bill why dont you check one of the many threads that is also on this subject.
 
Our_Refuge said:
They don’t. If they did they would have a Tabernacle to keep the Eucharist in. Their definition of “real presence” is completely different than that of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
This often brings the question to my mind, what did Christ and the disciples do with the remaining bread and wine that Christ himself consecrated? I suspect they ate and drank it all. But if they didn’t, they also didn’t tell us what to do with it.
If not consumed during the celebration, it should be carefully reserved for use with the sick and shut-ins, etc., or for future use.
Simply discarding it gives me the willys, as Christ said, “This is my body”, which sounds permanant to me.

Jon
 
grampben said:
Agreed. Strangely my biggest problem with Catholic eucharistic theology is the parading of the sacrament on corpus christi and adoration. Jesus said ‘take and eat’ his body, not ‘take and worship’.
Click to expand...
I think even the Catholic Church, in dialogue, has stated that they agree that the primary purpose of the Eucharist is “take and eat”.
I’m not uncomfortable with adoration, but I am with Corpus Christi processions, maybe because I didn’t grow up with it.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
I’m not uncomfortable with adoration, but I am with Corpus Christi processions, maybe because I didn’t grow up with it.

Jon
Click to expand...
I reckon it’s the same with me, but I don’t mean to offend catholics by not feeling comfortable with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top