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.
Mickey said:
Did–uh–kaye
Click to expand...
Thanks! I could just imagine trying to have an intelligent conversation with someone on this and completely blowing the pronunciation.

Wouldn’t be the first time for me…😊
 
dparker said:
Thanks! I could just imagine trying to have an intellient conversation with someone on this and completely blowing the pronunciation.

Wouldn’t be the first time for me…😊
Click to expand...
Been there–done that. 😃
 
ryanoneil said:
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!
Click to expand...
So, then, how is Jesus present to His Church? If you answer that He is present in Spirit, Are you not blurring the distinction between the Son and the Spirit?

Jesus Christ is not a spirit, but is rather quite corporeal and real! Did He not invite the doubting disciples to touch and feel His risen body for themselves, and hence believe that He is not a mere spirit (Luke 24:37-39)? Did He not bodily ascend into heaven and take up His seat at the right hand of the Father? Will He not bodily return to earth to catch up the saints, and judge the living and the dead? If the answer to these questions is affirmative, then surely when He is present to His Church, He is present in body!

The New Testament Church believed that Jesus Christ was present in its assemblies, precisely because the New Testament Church believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist!

Peace,

Ryan 🙂
 
amen ryan, there are several ways in which Jesus has been present to His people and others on this earth.

The greatest of which is the greatest miracle that occurs daily at pretty much every one of the multiple thousands of Catholic Churches worldwide.

This is one of the reasons that the devil wants to rid the world of priests, because without the priest there is no power to confect the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

There is but one priesthood and that is from the perfect line of Melchezidek fulfilled finally in Jesus Christ and ordained and continued by Him to preside over the Mass with Him and bring Him to His people Body Blood Soul and Divinity. Truly Present.

This belief was unanimous amongst Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
 
AgnosTheist said:
How can some catholic priests reject the idea of the ‘Real Presence’? Like Father Lambert here:

query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A02E6DE1630E033A25755C2A9659C94659ED7CF&oref=slogin
Click to expand...
Because they are human and with humanity in sin nature, they are like thomas. Many of these doubting priests have had Eucharistic miracles occur while in the mass and the host and cup turned to visible blood and flesh, still remaining intact to this very day, some over a thousand years old and still have not broken down to be less than flesh and blood in their scientific make up.
 
The Miracle of the Bread actually becoming the glorified Flesh of Jesus Christ and the Wine actually becoming the glorified blood of Jesus Christ
 
How is it that there are people who have not heard of the miracles surrounding the Eucharist? Would it be because their church leaders don’t want them to know they were wrong… that it is indeed the true body and blood?

As for those of you who have made comments about cannibalism… it can’t be cannibalism because that is eating ones own kind… and even though Christ is true man… he is also true God… which we are not. May I also remind you that your “feelings” aren’t important here, God’s words are…

Did you ever think that your faith was supposed to be easy? Christ himself said it wouldn’t be easy… think about that next time you read about the Last Supper… or when you read how Jesus was willing to let his followers go unless they believed in the true body and blood…
 
justinthemartyr said:
The Miracle of the Bread actually becoming the glorified Flesh of Jesus Christ and the Wine actually becoming the glorified blood of Jesus Christ
Click to expand...
BlestOne said:
How is it that there are people who have not heard of the miracles surrounding the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
thats just a matter of imagination. thats why some priests can justify leaving catholicism. and thats why fewer and fewer people in the west are choosing to become priests. theres really nothing magical about it.
 
AgnosTheist said:
thats just a matter of imagination. thats why some priests can justify leaving catholicism. and thats why fewer and fewer people in the west are choosing to become priests. theres really nothing magical about it.
Click to expand...
Have you seriously never read John chapter 6? I’m sure this was already brought up but still: If Jesus was not being literal why then did the Jews say “He’s telling us to eat him!” and then walk away. If it were symbolic, why didn’t Jesus stop them and say “Hey guys I don’t mean it literally, its a symbol come back!” Why would He allow them to leave thinking that and turning away from Him? Why would he purposefully allow people to leave Him thinking something wrong? As I Protestant, I never read that passage and when I did it was obvious.

Also, after attending Mass and witnessing the miracle of the Eucharist first hand there’s no way I could turn my back on God and His Word. I find it sad that so many Protestants don’t believe in miracles or in God’s power anymore. Though I suppose thats because there aren’t many miracles and works of God going on in their worship. Too many people think God doesn’t perform miracles anymore. That really makes me sad.
 
homewardbound said:
Also, after attending Mass and witnessing the miracle of the Eucharist first hand there’s no way I could turn my back on God and His Word. I find it sad that so many Protestants don’t believe in miracles or in God’s power anymore. Though I suppose thats because there aren’t many miracles and works of God going on in their worship. Too many people think God doesn’t perform miracles anymore. That really makes me sad.
Click to expand...
As a Protestant, no-one EVER mentioned that Chapter to me. Nor did they talk about the early Church. Or the formation of the Canon. When I finally read them, I was shocked. All this time they had NEVER bothered to tell me about these things. They said that what Jesus said in John 6 was blasphemy, and Catholic communion was vile sacrilege. But they, by not EVER mentioning it, in effect, LIED TO ME. They never told me that Jesus taught the real Presence, or about the nature of Church in early times. So now I’m becoming Catholic.

When I was Anglican Catholic, I invited my family to come to mass with me. My father did (With the intention of pointing out all the vile idolatry and sacrilege going on at Mass :rolleyes: ) and so did my Mom.

The lesson was from John 6. My Mom was shocked. After Mass, she told me that she’d never heard that before, in a lifetime of being Protestant… I think this is one of the reasons she leans toward Lutheranism, as they believe in the Real Presence (But lack Apostolic Succession).
 
To get things back on course…
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.
Click to expand...
The Mormons and other Protestant religions are quite correct…Their “Lords Supper” does not contain the real presence of Jesus Christ in it, as they have no valid priesthood. No priesthood, no real presence. They are indeed eating bread and drinking grape juice. They rightly should reject the Real Presence in their celebrations…but they wrongly reject Real Presence in the sacrifice of the Mass of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church and the Eastern Church’s maintain valid priesthood and so during every Mass, when the words of consecration are spoken by the priest, Jesus reaches back in time and makes His once-for-all sacrifice present…body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Halelujah…Amen!:signofcross:
 
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...
Not all Protestants reject it. Anglicans believe in the Real Presence. I know Lutherans believe that it is both body and blood of Christ and bread and wine at the same time. They do have a very strong argument for that vfrom Scripture though.
 
AllSaints1631 said:
Not all Protestants reject it. Anglicans believe in the Real Presence. I know Lutherans believe that it is both body and blood of Christ and bread and wine at the same time. They do have a very strong argument for that vfrom Scripture though.
Click to expand...
As it stands:

Catholicism: Transubstantiation
Anglicanism: Real Presence, sometimes understood as transubstatiation, sometimes as consubstatiation
Orthodoxy: Metaousia, similar to consubstantiation
Lutheranism: consubstatiation
Most Protestants: symbolism
 
Metaron said:
As it stands:

Catholicism: Transubstantiation
Anglicanism: Real Presence, sometimes understood as transubstatiation, sometimes as consubstatiation
Orthodoxy: Metaousia, similar to consubstantiation
Lutheranism: consubstatiation
Most Protestants: symbolism
Click to expand...
agreed.
 
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...
If you really want to know why Prostestants reject the catholic idea of the real presence in the eucharist then read this article. It’s short (one page) and just gives the basics:

webtruth.org/articles/theological-issues-23/transubstantiation-49.html
 
From Solafide’s stated website:
Worse still many professed ‘evangelicals’ such as Benny Hinn, the world’s foremost charismatic preacher, actually believe in it (PTL Show, TBN, 27th Dec. 1994). During the filming of The Passion of the Christ, a film many evangelicals have endorsed, director Mel Gibson and lead actor James Caviezel (who played ‘Jesus’), both traditional Roman Catholics, took Latin Mass every day together on the set.
Click to expand...
Mel Gibson is Old Catholic, not Roman Catholic.
As all students of history know, the Roman Catholic Church, through the Office of the ‘Holy’ Inquisition, tortured and killed, sometimes in the most horrific ways imaginable, those who did not accept its doctrine of transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
The Inquisition had nothing to do with transubstatiation. It dealt with conversos, muslims, Jews, and protesters pretending to be Catholic in order to infiltrate them. Besides, the executions were state-ordered, not Church-ordered.
Scientifically it is impossible that if the shape, colour, flavour, odour, texture and constitution of the bread and wine remain the same, the bread can be said in any sense to have turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ during a Mass. All empirical evidence supports the fact that no change whatsoever takes place. So how do intelligent doctors, lawyers, accountants and other non-professional Roman Catholics, convince themselves otherwise?
Click to expand...
I guess they don’t believe God is Almighty. Poor, foolish people.
The theory of transubstantiation rests on the unscientific theories of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC)
Click to expand...
The Church Fathers were already stating it long before Aristotle, and it’s in the Bible where Jesus and St.Paul elaborate on it. Geez, these people are deceptive.
Does the Bible teach that the bread and wine mysteriously turn into the real body and blood of Christ when the words ‘‘This is my body’’ are spoken? Consider; when the Lord Jesus spoke those words in Matt 26:26, His actual body was reclining at the table in the upper room. Clearly His body was either beside the table, or in the bread. It cannot have been in both places at once. This simple observation is enough to show that Christ at this point spoke in representative, not literal terms.
Click to expand...
Are they saying that God isn’t almighty? Besides, St.Paul took it literally.
Likewise, when the Lord said ‘‘I am the door’’ and ‘‘I am the true vine,’’ He was not speaking literally. If “this is My body” is taken literally, what is the Roman Catholic Mass if not some mysterious form of cannibalism? How could Peter have eaten the literal blood of Christ in the Upper Room, only to command a few years later that all Gentile Christians abstain from eating blood (Acts 15:29)?
Click to expand...
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” -1 Cor. 10:16-17
Rome feels it has all the scriptural proof it needs for the doctrine of transubstantiation in John ch. 6, where the Bible makes clear that eating Christ’s flesh and drinking Christ’s blood is a ‘must’. However, we must note several vital points. Firstly, the context of John ch. 6 has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper — it is about Christ coming into the world and sinners finding true satisfaction in Him. Now, since the Jews found the concept of eating flesh and drinking blood especially offensive, we can be sure that if Christ had insisted that He was speaking literally, there would have been long sustained protests.
Click to expand...
If he was speaking metaphorically, why’d he use the word trogo? And metaphors of drinking blood were meant as dealing bodily injury to someone, such as the harlot in Revelation. It certainly wasn’t a metaphor! When Protestants use the symbolic view, they are embracing Zwingli’s humanistic view. The “symbolic view” did not exist before the 1500. NO PROTESTANT HAS EXPLAINED THIS TO ME.

CONTINUED>>>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top