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.
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...
Because Jesus Himself said He was speaking in Spirit in verse 63

**

John 6:63

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

**

Because when the people coming for more food first asked, Jesus said Believe on Him:

**

John 6

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.

**

Verse 29’s first answer is to believe on Him, not to eat Him.

They rejected and asked for real bread, Jesus then compares to Him being the spiritual bread. It is so straight forward that He is stating to Believe in Him, but you concentrate on one line instead of reading the whole account.

**

John 6

36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.

**

So do catholics believe that Jesus’ feeding of the 5000 was the first communion? Because if we are to interpret this way, then the above verse would have to mean that Jesus’ feeding of the 5000 was a communion service.

did they all line up one by one in a line and say ‘Body of Christ’, response ‘Amen’

I do not need any background or prejustice, I was raised catholic, and when I read the Bible, it was as clear as day, no real presence at all.

Jesus said He is the vine, He is the door, etc…
 
rbarcia said:
Because Jesus Himself said He was speaking in Spirit in verse 63

**

John 6:63

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

**
Click to expand...
Does spirit = symbolic, per your interpretation???
 
the title of your thread is puzzling because your post refers to Mormons. so why not ask "Do Mormons believe in . . . . "
There are all kinds of non-Catholics, some Christian, who may or not profess belief in the Real Presence in their sacrament, with varieties of understanding of that term, as well as non-Christians, for whom of course the issue is moot since they don’t believe in Jesus Christ any how. Why not rephrase your question to ask what is really on your mind. If you are going to begin with a definite assertion about some specific group, you must provide a source or link for your assertion about their beliefs, not “I heard”, or “I read” or “my Mormon friends say”.
 
rbarcia said:
Because Jesus Himself said He was speaking in Spirit in verse 63

**

John 6:63

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

**

Because when the people coming for more food first asked, Jesus said Believe on Him:

**

John 6

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”**
30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.

Verse 29’s first answer is to believe on Him, not to eat Him.

They rejected and asked for real bread, Jesus then compares to Him being the spiritual bread. It is so straight forward that He is stating to Believe in Him, but you concentrate on one line instead of reading the whole account.

**

John 6

36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.

**

So do catholics believe that Jesus’ feeding of the 5000 was the first communion? Because if we are to interpret this way, then the above verse would have to mean that Jesus’ feeding of the 5000 was a communion service.

did they all line up one by one in a line and say ‘Body of Christ’, response ‘Amen’

I do not need any background or prejustice, I was raised catholic, and when I read the Bible, it was as clear as day, no real presence at all.

Jesus said He is the vine, He is the door, etc…
Click to expand...
BLAH BLAH BLAH…that was not the question. Most of us have seen this dissertation before. We are well aware of the arguments for symbolism. That was not the question at hand.

The question was when this belief of symbolism was first verifyably proclaimed by any group of Christians.
 
Blue_Serenity said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nice knowing you.

If communion is symbolic like the old sacrifices then it is a prophecy of christ future crucifixion… aint gonna happen!

Thats the LAW!!!
 
Blue_Serenity said:
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.
Click to expand...
The general interpretation of John 6:35-59 and Paul’s 1 Corinthians Chapter 11:27-34, seems to disagree with you on this issue. The majority of orthodox Christians both Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic Church, and some Protestant Church such as the Lutherans and Anglicans acknowledge the Real Presence of Jesus Christ (let me note that some their definition differ but the general acceptance of Jesus’ Real Presence in the Blessed Host is believed).
 
christianley said:
I…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...
Not entirely true; Anglicans are permitted to hold a variety of views, namely, consubstantiation, metaousia, transubstantiation, just so long that they believe that the Real Presence is there. Lutherans are also consubstantiationists, I think. And a few presbyterians have a spiritualist view. But the independents, fundies and the evangelicals, the large bulk of Protestants, believe in the Zwinglian view, which, needless to say, didn’t exist before the 1500’s.
 
Originally Posted by Blue Serenity:
“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.”
Click to expand...
So you’re a symbolic cannibal, eh? Chuckle, Chuckle, jeer, jeer… 😃
 
Blue_Serenity said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you’re just a symbolic cannibal then? Chuckle, chuckle, jeer, jeer… :rotfl:
 
Blue_Serenity said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you’re only a symbolic cannibal? :rotfl:

But seriously, though. The symbolic view popped up only during the reformation. My dad’s a fundie and he couldn’t even find anything before the “reformation” (The Division, I call it) substantiating that the Zwinglian view was even considered a view before the Division.
 
People who don’t believe in the real presence must address these two passages: “For where two or three meet in my name, I am there among them” (Mat. 18:20), and “Lo, I am with you always, yes, to the end of time” (Matt. 28:20). Was Jesus misleading us in these passages? Of course not!

Peace,

Ryan 🙂
 
Why do non-Catholics reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Hi

Only because it not reasonable and does not appeal to me. I think it is only an exaggeration of the scribes.

Thanks
 
could it be how the words “in spirit and truth” are interpreted in the Gospel of John. My understanding is that you must understand this in unison - not just that it is the eucharist in spirit or just in truth - but both in spirit and truth. I think its correct what protestants believe that it is a memorial (spirit) but they don’t accept the following affirmation that it is actual presence too (in truth). I think the complete and fullest understanding is to accept both - it is presence in spirit and truth - a memorial, a remembrance, a symbol but also the real presence, a real union, a real sacrifice perpetually present. I mean, God is eternal and omni-present - why couldn’t he stay on earth in a physical form perpetually until the end of time? 🤷 Likewise the sacrifice of Calvary took place once in history and time - but in spirit and truth in eternity, it exists forever and is forever present. So what if God wanted to share that with people whilst they lived on earth - His God he can do it.

people say God is omni-potent but then when he does something omni-potent just because human worm brains can’t “understand” it they say ‘nope, God didn’t do that’. :rolleyes: 😃

God can do anything - if he wanted to come to earth as a human - newsflash, he can do it and he doesn’t need humans to understand. If God wanted to stay on earth with people who love Him under the auspice of bread - again newsflash - he can do it. That’s what being omni-potent is - you can do anything, you are not confined by laws and logic, least of all the logic of human beings (which can be below zero in some people)

Finally, this is the logic of the eucharist that makes sense to me. God loves us and wants us to love Him, and what do you want to do with people you love? You want to be near them and with them, and share your life with them and have them share their life with you.

Well that’s what makes sense to me.🤷 🙂
 
I find it interesting that everone who’s responded here defending the symbolic viewpoint has ignored the part of the question about the early church fathers.:hmmm:
 
Jestocost said:
I find it interesting that everone who’s responded here defending the symbolic viewpoint has ignored the part of the question about the early church fathers.:hmmm:
Click to expand...
Nice observation.

So as the scriptural “is my body” is explained away as a figure, likewise any “IS” in Justin as well as in other ECFs is probably read as “represents” to keep that viewpoint. (Nevermind wondering what the poor guy had to write to mean “IS”, if any “IS” is said to mean “represents” 🤷 ).

But … let’s read the central part of Chapter 66 of the First Apology by Justin Martyr (ca 150 AD) , together with every poster **** holding to the symbolic view:

but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Here Real Presence is explicitly connected to that central pillar of Christianity which is Incarnation. In like manner as Jesus had flesh …the food blessed by the prayer … is the flesh …of that Jesus.

It seems, then, that we have to say that, if the blessed food is only figuratively flesh, the Word became flesh only figuratively, ie that Jesus had no real flesh.

Is Justin telling that ? 🤷
 
Blue_Serenity said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that you should put it this way. It happens to be a charge leveled by the ancient Romans against christians of that era.

Have a look at chap. 9 of this document…
newadvent.org/fathers/0410.htm

Also, if you read John chapter 6 you will see that the only time that desciples actually walked away from Christ. It is because they also thought he was speaking about cannibilism. It’s all right there.

Subrosa
 
Yosh, i am a protestant who believe in real presence…so HC cannot be taken lightly…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top