Why do non-Catholics reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter christianley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

christianley

Guest
I recently heard a talk from a Mormon leader in which he stated the Mormons reject the idea that Christ is truly present in the Bread and Water during their sacrament meeting. I have heard Prostestants of various stripe make the same claim – the Lord’s Supper is simply a memorial meal and the body and blood of Christ aren’t really there. It seems to me that if the Early Fathers taught anything, they taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. People like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen all taught the Real Presence. It was a teaching handed down from earliest times and is certainly Biblical. How can it be rejected so easily?

Here’s an article with some quotes:

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
 
Is this about Mormons or non-Catholics, please?

Because we don’t, as has been stated on other threads.
christianley said:
I recently heard a talk from a Mormon leader in which he stated the Mormons reject the idea that Christ is truly present in the Bread and Water during their sacrament meeting. I have heard Prostestants of various stripe make the same claim – the Lord’s Supper is simply a memorial meal and the body and blood of Christ aren’t really there. It seems to me that if the Early Fathers taught anything, they taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. People like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen all taught the Real Presence. It was a teaching handed down from earliest times and is certainly Biblical. How can it be rejected so easily?

Here’s an article with some quotes:

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
Click to expand...
 
christianley said:
I recently heard a talk from a Mormon leader in which he stated the Mormons reject the idea that Christ is truly present in the Bread and Water during their sacrament meeting.
Click to expand...
This may be the case, but not all protestants reject the real presence of christ. Lutherans are the first to come to my mind. The difference being they believe it remains bread/wine and body blood. I think the term is cosubstantiation rather than transubstaniation.

Interestingly enough, I was amazed to learn how many Catholics reject this teaching; however, I think this is more of a case of never learning what the church taught rather than outright rejection of the belief.

Nohome
 
There was a poll over in Ireland last year…well over 50%
of Roman Catholics there stated they do not believe in the Real Presence.

They must certainly have known what the teaching is.
Nohome said:
This may be the case, but not all protestants reject the real presence of christ. Lutherans are the first to come to my mind. The difference being they believe it remains bread/wine and body blood. I think the term is cosubstantiation rather than transubstaniation.

Interestingly enough, I was amazed to learn how many Catholics reject this teaching; however, I think this is more of a case of never learning what the church taught rather than outright rejection of the belief.

Nohome
Click to expand...
 
Nohome said:
This may be the case, but not all protestants reject the real presence of christ. Lutherans are the first to come to my mind. The difference being they believe it remains bread/wine and body blood. I think the term is cosubstantiation rather than transubstaniation.

Interestingly enough, I was amazed to learn how many Catholics reject this teaching; however, I think this is more of a case of never learning what the church taught rather than outright rejection of the belief.

Nohome
Click to expand...
I would guess the majority of Protestants in the United States reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All Baptists do. The Assemblies of God and most other Evangelical Protestants do. Episcopalians (a relatively small denomination) and Lutherans accept it in some form as do some Methodists (but certainly not all). I don’t understand how so many Christians who have access to what the Early Church Fathers taught as well as what the Bible teaches can reject this so easily.
 
hermitcrab said:
There was a poll over in Ireland last year…well over 50%
of Roman Catholics there stated they do not believe in the Real Presence.

They must certainly have known what the teaching is.
Click to expand...
Time to re-catechize them into the faith. They are wrong to deny the Real Presence.
 
Oddly enough, when I was a protestant I didn’t reject the Real Presence as a belief. I didn’t believe it myself, but I recognized upon reading the related Biblical passages that it was a perfectly valid interpretation. To me it was just as possible as the meaning being symbolic. (I shudder at the relativistic attitude I displayed then.)

What I would like to know is why so many protestants insist that the Real Presence isn’t even a possibility? If they truly upheld their ideals about personal interpretation of the Bible they would have to admit it.
 
Verita said:
Oddly enough, when I was a protestant I didn’t reject the Real Presence as a belief. I didn’t believe it myself, but I recognized upon reading the related Biblical passages that it was a perfectly valid interpretation. To me it was just as possible as the meaning being symbolic. (I shudder at the relativistic attitude I displayed then.)

What I would like to know is why so many protestants insist that the Real Presence isn’t even a possibility? If they truly upheld their ideals about personal interpretation of the Bible they would have to admit it.
Click to expand...
I’m curious – how could anyone read the Bible and interpret it as simply symbolic? Is there a way to look at the Biblical language and understand it that way?
 
The first time I read the passage I believe exactly what Jesus mean what he said. “This is my Body. This is My Blood of the New Covenant.”
 
christianley said:
I’m curious – how could anyone read the Bible and interpret it as simply symbolic? Is there a way to look at the Biblical language and understand it that way?
Click to expand...
There are bible studies on it. They get into many different aspects of why it is symbolic language. Most of those arguments you can see here in the forums.

But occassionally, a person in the bible study will look with disbelief in what they are teaching. I was such a person. I could not understand how people who taught just a short time ago that Genesis was a literal translation, could say that John 6 was symbolic.

That is why I came back/came to the Catholic Church. (Since my parents left when I was 4, I technically came back, but am truly more of a convert than a revert.).

God bless,
Maria
 
christianley said:
I’m curious – how could anyone read the Bible and interpret it as simply symbolic? Is there a way to look at the Biblical language and understand it that way?
Click to expand...
As a protestant, I believed it was symbolic because that is what my pastor said and what my family believed. I think most protestants believe this for the same reason. Most probably don’t actually think about it critically.
 
There are good, albeit erroneous, reasons for believing that Christ spoke in symbolic terms with respect to the Eucharist. The most compelling is the form of the consecrated host and wine…it does not take on the appearance of flesh and blood. Those of us who believe in the Real Presence have an explanation(s) for this, but let’s not simply dismiss this point out of hand. If you are a Christian who believes in a symbolic Eucharist, what you see and taste is empirical evidence that Christ was not speaking literally. Second, Christ often spoke in parables…“I am the vine”…“I am the door”…“I am the Good Shepherd.” Or when Jesus said that if the temple were torn down, he would rebuild it in three days. All of these examples were intended to be illustrative and/or symbolic, not literal (not really a vine, not really a door, not really a shepherd, not really the temple in Jerusalem). So, why not the Eucharist as well (not really my blood and flesh)?

I believe in the Real Presence, but I think that if we are going to understand and witness to our brothers who believe otherwise, we have to recognize the rationality of their contentions and deal with them on that basis.
 
rr1213 said:
There are good, albeit erroneous, reasons for believing that Christ spoke in symbolic terms with respect to the Eucharist. The most compelling is the form of the consecrated host and wine…it does not take on the appearance of flesh and blood. Those of us who believe in the Real Presence have an explanation(s) for this, but let’s not simply dismiss this point out of hand. If you are a Christian who believes in a symbolic Eucharist, what you see and taste is empirical evidence that Christ was not speaking literally. Second, Christ often spoke in parables…“I am the vine”…“I am the door”…“I am the Good Shepherd.” Or when Jesus said that if the temple were torn down, he would rebuild it in three days. All of these examples were intended to be illustrative and/or symbolic, not literal (not really a vine, not really a door, not really a shepherd, not really the temple in Jerusalem). So, why not the Eucharist as well (not really my blood and flesh)?

I believe in the Real Presence, but I think that if we are going to understand and witness to our brothers who believe otherwise, we have to recognize the rationality of their contentions and deal with them on that basis.
Click to expand...
I guess the Early Fathers are the control here. They taught the Real Presence and so it is difficult to believe those who taught them, the Apostles, taught them that it was symbolic. The Bible really is difficult to interpret if you take it outside the tradition of the Church.
 
christianley said:
All Baptists do.
Click to expand...
My mom actually believes in the Real Presence. I was always taught growing up taking communion “This is Jesus’s body and blood” I always imagined that once I swallowed it thats what it turned into, since to my eye it was bread and juice. She refuses, however, to do any research or even know her own church’s doctrine on this matter. For her, as long as the church has the word Baptist in it and teaches from the KJV it has to be good.😦
 
We don’t interpret the Bible as being cannibalistic (literal). We view it as symbolic of the Last Supper and a spiritual connection to Christ’s sacrifice for us.
 
My line of thinking on this may be a little tangential, but I think it may have to do with the fact that the majority of mainline denoms. have absolutely no valid claim of even having the Real Presence. The only denoms. that really hold to the doctrine of Real Presence are the ones that are direct offshoots of the Catholic Church (I’m thinking Lutheran and Anglican here). The Anglicans claim Apostolic succession, and I’m fairly certain the Lutherans do also, even though I have never really seen their arguments presented (nor do I want to go there…this is not a debate on Apostolic succession, and I do not with to denigrate their faith tradition, I’m just drawing a long winded point here). I don’t know of any Protestant traditions outside of those two that would even TRY to claim valid Apostolic succession.

Without Apostolic succession, there is no Real Presence. Maybe, historically, there is a little bit of psychology involved here. Knowing there was no possibility they had Real Presence, they simply deny the possibility of Real Presence.

Sorry if anyone took offense to anything I said. Again, this is nothing more than my own personal ramblings.
 
In my experience, a lot of people have been or have become “culturally conditioned” to be anti-Catholic. [And that could be owing to a huge variety of circumstances.]

If … those folks were to accept The Real Presence (the way that Catholics “should” believe in The Real Presence), then those non-Catholics would have to enter the Catholic Church.

BUT, they have been conditioned to be anti-Catholic.

So, they are caught between a rock and a hard place, in a sense.

They have an emotional reaction one way and then, with The Real Presence, they would be equally pulled the other way.

It would be like holding two mutually conflicting views at the same time.

Very conflicting … in terms of mental and psychological state. Not to mention their “spiritual state”. Not to mention their family situation.

This is a genuinely difficult issue.

Read (or, even better, listen to his tape) Scott Hahn’s account of the incredible inner and family turmoil that resulted from not only his conversion but also from merely his research, discussions, and studying about Catholicism and The Real Presence.
 
I’m curious - does anyone know roughly when the belief of symbolism rather than Real Presence began to take shape?
 
I don’t have any solid scholarship on the subject, but I would think that this idea has promulgated within various heretical movements (I’m thinking Gnosticism here) since the beginnings of the Church. As far as becoming widely accepted as a viable doctrine, I have no clue. This is a good question though…anyone ???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top