Why do Protestants reject the Real Presence?

[beckycmarie]

I’ve been wondering what the significance of the Last Supper is to protestants, specifically Matthew 26:26-28

The Lord’s Supper Instituted
26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;

28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

If most protestants subscribe to sola scriptura, why do they not accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Why do these words of Jesus suddenly become figurative for them? If they don’t believe the bread and wine he offered were his body and blood, aren’t they calling Jesus a liar?

 

[DLC]

We reject the idea of the real presence in Communion because it is not Scriptural. No Bible passage says that ellemnts turn into the real thing. When Jesus said in John 6 to and drink he did not mean to literally mean eat His flesh and drink His real blood. These terms are the same as believe. They are figures of speach. We often say that we need to devour the subject, digest the thought, drink in the understanding of the thought and so forth. The Jews would not have taken the idea that Christ meant to eat of Him as literal. That would be canibalism and a sin. Jesus was saying to the hearers to think about what He had just said about believing or having faith in Him for salvation. We must understand how the Jews would have understood this idea and also look carefully at the context. Communion is to be understood as a memorial not a literal eating and drinking of Christ.

 

[MrStain]

We reject the idea of the real presence in Communion because it is not Scriptural. No Bible passage says that ellemnts turn into the real thing. When Jesus said in John 6 to and drink he did not mean to literally mean eat His flesh and drink His real blood. These terms are the same as believe. They are figures of speach. We often say that we need to devour the subject, digest the thought, drink in the understanding of the thought and so forth. The Jews would not have taken the idea that Christ meant to eat of Him as literal. That would be canibalism and a sin. Jesus was saying to the hearers to think about what He had just said about believing or having faith in Him for salvation. We must understand how the Jews would have understood this idea and also look carefully at the context. Communion is to be understood as a memorial not a literal eating and drinking of Christ.

Curious. Why do you think many of his followers left him after walked with him no more after he declared we must eat His flesh and drink His blood as told in John 6?

As far as I can tell (I’m no scholar), the Real Presence is what was taught and is easily verifiable from some of the earliest writings of the Church. Would you call them cannibals? That would certainly put you in league with those who persecuted the early Christians, because I believe they also called the faithful cannibals.

 

[savedsinner]

We reject the idea of the real presence in Communion because it is not Scriptural. No Bible passage says that elements turn into the real thing. When Jesus said in John 6 to and drink he did not mean to literally mean eat His flesh and drink His real blood. These terms are the same as believe. They are figures of speech. We often say that we need to devour the subject, digest the thought, drink in the understanding of the thought and so forth. The Jews would not have taken the idea that Christ meant to eat of Him as literal. That would be cannibalism and a sin. Jesus was saying to the hearers to think about what He had just said about believing or having faith in Him for salvation. We must understand how the Jews would have understood this idea and also look carefully at the context. Communion is to be understood as a memorial not a literal eating and drinking of Christ.

Then why did St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John himself, teach about the real presence in the Eucharist just 10 - 20 years after St. John wrote his gospel?
Was St. John that bad of a teacher?

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again”
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

And why were the early Christians accused of cannibalism by the Romans?

And why did many followers of Jesus leave him after his teaching on the bread of life in John chapter 6?

And why would St. Paul write the following if the Eucharist was just a symbol?
Can you sin if you eat and drink a “symbol” unworthily?
Why would he write that you would be profaning the “body and blood” of Christ, if they were only symbols?

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Your interpretation does not follow with the reaction of not only the Jews but also many of Jesus’ disciples after He had said what He said.
John 6
[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
[59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
[60]Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
[64] But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
[66]**After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. **

This is by no means a figure of speech. And Jesus meant exactly what He said. He wanted to provoke controversy. Those who believed that He was the Messiah believed only because they had seen the signs He had performed, anyone who had seen what they saw would come to that logical conclusion. Jesus wanted to test their true belief so He revealed something of the age to come, the age of the Church and the Kingdom, and because of this truth their faith was shaken and they quit following Him. All except the apostles. Whose words echo in every Catholic Church throughout the ages, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”(John 6:69)

The actual Greek speaks in terms much more raw than the English. The literal translation instead of simply “to eat” actually means “to gnaw”.

The words of the institution that Christ uses at the Last Supper are no less raw. Nowhere in the narrative does Christ say that “this is the “symbol” of my body…this is the “symbol” of my blood.” He states matter of factly about the bread “This IS MY Body…” and about the wine, “This IS the cup of MY Blood.” He is after all The Lamb of God. What did one who was a good Jew do to renew his covenant with God. He ate the Passover Lamb. Christ is the definitive Passover Lamb "who takes away the sin of the world.

What Christ did with the bread and the wine at the Last Supper the Apostles were already too keenly aware of. Jesus was offering a Todah sacrifice to the Father within the context of the Passover meal. In this act He fulfilled what the Jews had taught for centuries about the Messiah. That in the coming Messianic age, all sacrifices would cease except the Todah sacrifice.

If you want background on the Todah look at Genesis and the offering of Melchizedek who was a prefigurement of Christ. The Psalms are filled with Todah prayers like Psalm 22 which begins with a lament but ends with thanksgiving for deliverance from one’s enemies. This very prayer Jesus utters on the cross right before He releases His spirit.

That is why you must also look at the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11:
[23]For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
[27]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

Paul is saying that if you receive the Eucharist unworthily that you are guilty of blasphemy! That is a pretty strong conviction coming from something that you consider to be just a “symbol”.

 

[ibkc]

I don’t know how anyone can read John 6 and not realize that Jesus was being very serious.

It also boggles that so many Protestants claim to take the whole Bible in an absolute literal sense, except for the parts about the Eucharist. Which, ironically, is the part that is most important to take literally.

 

[MrStain]

I don’t know how anyone can read John 6 and not realize that Jesus was being very serious.

It also boggles that so many Protestants claim to take the whole Bible in an absolute literal sense, except for the parts about the Eucharist. Which, ironically, is the part that is most important to take literally.

That brings up an interesting point and one I believe made by the founder of this site, Karl Keating, in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism. The point is that most doctrines where fundamentalists take issue with Catholics are where Catholics make the literal interpretation of Scripture i.e. the Real Presence, Baptism, etc.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Then why did St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John himself, teach about the real presence in the Eucharist just 10 - 20 years after St. John wrote his gospel?

Was St. John that bad of a teacher?

 

[savedsinner]

Rightlydivide
Interpolated

I am not sure what you mean by that.
He was not the only person teaching the real presence, St Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp who in turn was taught by St. John also taught the real presence.
In fact it was a univeral teaching in the early Christian church, and not seriously denied until the 12th century.

Primary source please
Google it.

Because they could not accept his teachings.
HIs teachings, or “THIS” teaching?

The word “just” understates the importance of the Lords supper. Anything Christ tells us to do is never “just”. And cut the calling Jesus a liar stuff. Everyone cult on earth uses the same language when people disagree with them about interpretation, dont use their language.

What are you talking about?
“calling Jesus a liar stuff”
Jesus wasn’t a liar, He said “this is my body, and this is my blood” and he meant it, He is definitely not a liar.
I am taking him at his word.

 

[MrStain]

Interpolated

 

[PXseeker]

Many many “Protestants” profess a belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Lutherans and Anglicans do, without reservation. You will find that most of the Calvinist tradition (Presbyterian, UCC, Reform) have a belief in the Real Presence which may contain some differences. The denominations springing from the anabaptist tradition tend to reject this important belief.

Peace,
John

 

[Rolltide]

Primary source please

Here are early historical documents addressing rumors about Christianity, including cannibalism:

1. The writings of Pliny the Younger
2. Lollianus: Human Sacrifice (from a papyrus fragment)
3. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (died 166 AD): Cannibals and Lechers (quoted in Minucius Felix, Octavious 9)
4. Celsus: Superstitious Wizardry (185 AD)

Plus, apologies addressing the issue by:
5) Tertullian
6) Justin Martyr
7) Epiphanius (Panarion 26.4-5)
8) John Damascene (On Heresies)

 

[beckycmarie]

Many many “Protestants” profess a belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Lutherans and Anglicans do, without reservation. You will find that most of the Calvinist tradition (Presbyterian, UCC, Reform) have a belief in the Real Presence which may contain some differences. The denominations springing from the anabaptist tradition tend to reject this important belief.

Peace,
John

Thanks for that information. I knew about Anglicans, and the Lutheran belief in consubstantiation, but had not heard the Calvinist churches believe in the Real Presence.

 

[GKC]

Here are early historical documents addressing rumors about Christianity, including cannibalism:

1. The writings of Pliny the Younger
2. Lollianus: Human Sacrifice (from a papyrus fragment)
3. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (died 166 AD): Cannibals and Lechers (quoted in Minucius Felix, Octavious 9)
4. Celsus: Superstitious Wizardry (185 AD)

Plus, apologies addressing the issue by:
5) Tertullian
6) Justin Martyr
7) Epiphanius (Panarion 26.4-5)
8) John Damascene (On Heresies)

Beat me to it.

GKC

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;3302543:

Interpolated. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Smyrnæans is considered one of the seven authentic letters. Do you not trust any writings from the early Church? Would you trust Justin Martyr’s defense of the Real Presence written about 40 years later?

On the topic, isn’t the Lord’s Prayer doxology, "For thine is the Kingdom, the Power, etc., etc

" said by our Protestant brothers & sisters an interpolation within the bible? Do you refuse to believe that as well?

When they are not obviously interpolated sure.
I trust that many people misunderstood Christ from the very beginning!
No, it is not an interpolation in the Bible. Many early manuscripts have it. Now, some of the corrupt versions do not of course

 

[swariffin]

We reject the idea of the real presence in Communion because it is not Scriptural. No Bible passage says that ellemnts turn into the real thing. When Jesus said in John 6 to and drink he did not mean to literally mean eat His flesh and drink His real blood. These terms are the same as believe. They are figures of speach. We often say that we need to devour the subject, digest the thought, drink in the understanding of the thought and so forth. The Jews would not have taken the idea that Christ meant to eat of Him as literal. That would be canibalism and a sin. Jesus was saying to the hearers to think about what He had just said about believing or having faith in Him for salvation. We must understand how the Jews would have understood this idea and also look carefully at the context. Communion is to be understood as a memorial not a literal eating and drinking of Christ.

Why did Jesus said “This is my body” instead of “This is the symbol/sign of my body”? The scriptures always state the first expression, not the later.

 

[justinthemartyr]

they reject it because they have no clergy to confect the Blessed Sacrament. It takes thos ordained by the laying on of hands from the apostles forward, unbroken, from the one Church Jesus established upon cephas.

 

[O.S.Luke]

why do they not accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Why do these words of Jesus suddenly become figurative for them? If they don’t believe the bread and wine he offered were his body and blood, aren’t they calling Jesus a liar?

Methodists believe in the Real Presence.

 

[deacon_d]

Then why did St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John himself, teach about the real presence in the Eucharist just 10 - 20 years after St. John wrote his gospel?
Was St. John that bad of a teacher?

No John did not teach this. Jesus real presence comes from the influence of Greek Philosophy although denied of course by Rome. Here’s a quote from Ignatius to show how outlandish the belief had become.

. . . so that ye obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.

Seems Ignatius thinks eating the bread and wine cause someone to become immortal.

And why were the early Christians accused of cannibalism by the Romans?

Because the Jews in an effort to get rid of the Christians claimed that Christians were practicing cannibalism. Plain and simple. Again it’s a misunderstood teaching.

And why did many followers of Jesus leave him after his teaching on the bread of life in John chapter 6?

They couldn’t grasp the concept of fully accepting Jesus as their savior. Eating and drinking HIS flesh and blood was a way of telling them they should devote their lives to HIM. Jesus also clears this later when the Jews started grumbling about the teaching. HIS response is basically, what if I ascended back to where I came from, meaning what if you saw me ascend to Heaven, would you then believe. HE then clarifies what HIS whole teaching was about:

John 6: 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” It is at this point that many (not all) start leaving HIM. The same ones that left HIM were also the same ones who later yelled crucify HIM. Seems they never believed anyway.

If the flesh is of no help then obviously the claim of the Eucharist containing actual flesh if false. But also notice the word believe which is used frequently throughout John 6. The question I would ask back is why did John not write an account of the last supper. He mentions they were having it but he never mentions Jesus speaking the words this is my body this is my blood. Not saying Jesus didn’t say that because it’s in the first 3 Gospels. But If John wanted us to relate John 6 to the last supper words of Jesus then surely he would have written details of it.

And why would St. Paul write the following if the Eucharist was just a symbol?
Can you sin if you eat and drink a “symbol” unworthily?
Why would he write that you would be profaning the “body and blood” of Christ, if they were only symbols?

Very simple. The church in Corinth was abusing the Lord’s Supper. They were literally using it as an excuse to get drunk. This is the unworthy manner Paul speaks of. He then proceeds to tell them this was the reason for many of them getting sick. GOD was punishing them for this irate behavior.

The other thing to remember is that Paul’s letters were circulated before the Gospels. So this letter was the first written material that contained information about the Lord’s Supper the churches received. Notice how Paul states do this in remembrance of me. In other words eat this meal in remembrance of Jesus. The Greek there implies memorial. If this belief was so important then why was transubstantiation not made into doctrine by any Pope until 1215?

One final point. Jesus use of symbolism and parables is quite apparent throughout HIS teachings. If one were to take everything so literal, then why aren’t Roman Catholics walking around with their eyes gouged out and their hands cut off. Jesus said if your hand causes sin, chop it off. It’s better for the hand to go to hell than the whole body. Same for the eye.

PEACE

 

[deacon_d]

Why did Jesus said “This is my body” instead of “This is the symbol/sign of my body”? The scriptures always state the first expression, not the later.

Why didn’t Jesus say, consider chopping your hand off if it sins so that your whole body doesn’t go to hell? Or, consider gouging your eye out if it sins so the entire body doesn’t go to hell.

No, Jesus lilterally says, if your hand causes you to sin, CHOP it off. Likewise if your eye causes you to sin, GOUGE it out. Why is this figurative and not literal. Why does Jesus say:

John 6: 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. If the flesh is of no help then he couldn’t have meant that the bread was literally HIS flesh.

Your argument is weak and overused.