Why do some protestants not believe in the Body and Blood of Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sixtus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sixtus

Guest
Why when there is plenty of evidence to prove to the contrary, do some Protestants still refuse to accept the Lords authentic presence in the Holy Eucharist?
 
It’s kind of curious why the Protestant Faith doesn’t hold more value to our Lord’s request isn’t it. I’m a Catholic convert from the Pentecostal Church. From my experience, the reason seems not just to be a matter of interpretation, as I believe His request is quite explicit, it’s more a matter of separation. That is many protestans don’t want to get to close to Catholic beliefs or they might lose some of their own congregation.

Steve
 
Sixtus said:
Why when there is plenty of evidence to prove to the contrary, do some Protestants still refuse to accept the Lords authentic presence in the Holy Eucharist?
Click to expand...
because they would then be forced to join the Catholic Church…and become Catholic
 
Let me preface this by saying that I am a Protestant who does believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Nonethless, I came to this belief after “sitting on the fence” for a long time and, I must confess, some of what I’ve read in these forums helped to convince me that the Eucharist is not symbolic.

Nonethless, there are very rational (albeit erroneous) arguments for a symbolic Eucharist. First and foremost, the bread and wine maintain the appearance, taste, texture, smell, etc. of bread and wine. Nothing takes on the appearance of the body and blood. This is a very reasonable reason for believing that it is symbolic. Further, Christ often spoke in figurative terms. The best examples of this are when he referred to himself as “a door” or “the vine”. In both of these instances, Catholics as well as Protestants understand Christ to not be speaking literally. So, likewise, you can make the argument that He was not speaking literally when he said “this is my body, this is my blood”. He also said “do this in rememberance of me”, another support for the belief of a symbolic Eucharist.

Therefore, it certainly is not unreasonable to believe that the Eucharist is symbolic. Indeed, there are good arguments for a symbolic understanding. (Including theological arguments about sacrifice and other matters which I’ve not addressed here). Most, but not all, Protestants accept those arguments in believing that the Lord’s Supper does not involve the Real Presence.
 
You are right. The Lord made great use of Hyperbole.

‘If your eye causes you to sin rip it out’, ‘I am the true Vine’. ‘I tell you the truth, I tell you THE VERY TRUTH UNLESS you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in you’! Can you spot the difference in both what He said and the intonation [in capitals] of His voice?

Similarly, if we are taking it too seriously and should be taking it as hyperbole, why did St Paul believe in the Real Presence?
1 Cor 10: 18-21 and 1Cor 11: 27-31. Paul does not rebuke anyone from listening to the Word of God unworthily, only to the Body and Blood of the Lord

Where did Paul learn this? From the Blessed Apostles themselves
 
Looks like and taste like bread and wine.

There are numerous witnesses over the centuries who have been priviledged to taste the specimen in their REAL form. Even the totally unworthy sin soaking, wretch like myself included…
 
Sixtus said:
You are right. The Lord made great use of Hyperbole.

‘If your eye causes you to sin rip it out’, ‘I am the true Vine’. ‘I tell you the truth, I tell you THE VERY TRUTH UNLESS you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in you’! Can you spot the difference in both what He said and the intonation [in capitals] of His voice?

Similarly, if we are taking it too seriously and should be taking it as hyperbole, why did St Paul believe in the Real Presence?
1 Cor 10: 18-21 and 1Cor 11: 27-31. Paul does not rebuke anyone from listening to the Word of God unworthily, only to the Body and Blood of the Lord

Where did Paul learn this? From the Blessed Apostles themselves
Click to expand...
Right. In fact, for me, 1 Corinthians 11:29 is the most convincing Scripture passage (“For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”). I think, however, that Paul states that he learned this from Christ himself, not the other Apostles. See 1 Corinthians 11: 23 (NIV) (emphasis added).

" 23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."
 
He whose name I have taken, am totally unworthy of and ask for his forgiveness Pope St. Sixtus I (in the oldest documents, was pope from 114 to 124,

He is therefore numbered among the ‘early fathers’ of the Church.

Among the ordinances he passed included the following:
Code: 
   [1]  that none but sacred ministers are allowed to touch the  
         sacred vessels; 

   (2)  that after the Preface in the Mass the priest shall recite 
         the Sanctus with the people. Somthing that has survived  for over 1800 years to the 
         present day. :thumbsup:
His feast is celebrated on 6 April. He was buried in the Vatican, beside the tomb of St. Peter. Sixtus is commemorated in the Canon of the Mass
 
There are many who believe the bread and wine to be the blood and flesh in a spiritual sense and on a spiritual level.
I have never saw a Protestant partake of the Eucharist without deep prayers beforehand.
We take it very seriously.

A friend of mine is a member of a Baptist church which was excommunicated from the SBC (because of their belief in two resurrections, one of the saints and one for all other people) and their church believes Jesus only wanted the breaking of bread and drinking of wine to be at Passover.
WP
 
rr1213 said:
Let me preface this by saying that I am a Protestant who does believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
When are you coming home then my friend? That was the straw that made the camel catholic for me:) Once you know that, it all falls into place.
 
Sixtus said:
Why when there is plenty of evidence to prove to the contrary, do some Protestants still refuse to accept the Lords authentic presence in the Holy Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Some of us do. The issue then becomes one of validity.
 
Iraneaus said:
When are you coming home then my friend? That was the straw that made the camel catholic for me:) Once you know that, it all falls into place.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the invitation, but I’m afraid that there are a few more obstacles that prevent me from swimming the Tiber. 🙂
 
rr1213 said:
Thanks for the invitation, but I’m afraid that there are a few more obstacles that prevent me from swimming the Tiber. 🙂
Click to expand...
Theological or personal if you don’t mind my asking.

If you beleive in the real presence there is only one place to get it 👍

BTW if it is personal your welcome to answer me in PM if you like.
 
rr1213 said:
Let me preface this by saying that I am a Protestant who does believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Nonethless, I came to this belief after “sitting on the fence” for a long time and, I must confess, some of what I’ve read in these forums helped to convince me that the Eucharist is not symbolic.

Nonethless, there are very rational (albeit erroneous) arguments for a symbolic Eucharist. First and foremost, the bread and wine maintain the appearance, taste, texture, smell, etc. of bread and wine. Nothing takes on the appearance of the body and blood. This is a very reasonable reason for believing that it is symbolic. Further, Christ often spoke in figurative terms. The best examples of this are when he referred to himself as “a door” or “the vine”. In both of these instances, Catholics as well as Protestants understand Christ to not be speaking literally. So, likewise, you can make the argument that He was not speaking literally when he said “this is my body, this is my blood”. He also said “do this in rememberance of me”, another support for the belief of a symbolic Eucharist.

Therefore, it certainly is not unreasonable to believe that the Eucharist is symbolic. Indeed, there are good arguments for a symbolic understanding. (Including theological arguments about sacrifice and other matters which I’ve not addressed here). Most, but not all, Protestants accept those arguments in believing that the Lord’s Supper does not involve the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
 
Hello Protestant, my brother in Christ,

I’m glad to hear you have come to accept the truth about The Eucharist being the body & blood of Jesus. A priest friend once told me that if you study scripture, the closer Jesus got to the end of his life the less He spoke in parables and thus more literal. If this holds any truth then at the Last Supper, the Lord knew He would not be around for further explanation. I too had my doubts at one time before I converted. I have quite an exciting revelation to share with you in time - perhaps in a month I’ll have it ready.

Steve
 
FWIW, these are the answers I would offer to such objections.
rr1213 said:
Nonethless, there are very rational (albeit erroneous) arguments for a symbolic Eucharist. First and foremost, the bread and wine maintain the appearance, taste, texture, smell, etc. of bread and wine. Nothing takes on the appearance of the body and blood. This is a very reasonable reason for believing that it is symbolic.
Click to expand...
And yet Jesus Christ maintained the appearance, texture, smell, etc of a man. Nothing took on the appearance of God. So why do some have no problem believing that this man was God?
Further, Christ often spoke in figurative terms. The best examples of this are when he referred to himself as “a door” or “the vine”. In both of these instances, Catholics as well as Protestants understand Christ to not be speaking literally. So, likewise, you can make the argument that He was not speaking literally when he said “this is my body, this is my blood”.
Click to expand...
When He called Himself the door, He also called us the sheep. Since we know that we are not literal sheep, it follows that He is not a literal door. Likewise, when He called Himself the vine, He also called us the branches. Since we know that we are not literal branches, it follows that He is not a literal vine. But there is no such “clue” to indicate that He was speaking only figuratively when He said “this is my body, this is my blood”.
He also said “do this in rememberance of me”, another support for the belief of a symbolic Eucharist.
Click to expand...
And yet even believers in a symbolic Eucharist believe that Christ is truly present with them in worship. Why should “do this in rememberance of me” not also disallow that presence?
Therefore, it certainly is not unreasonable to believe that the Eucharist is symbolic. Indeed, there are good arguments for a symbolic understanding. (Including theological arguments about sacrifice and other matters which I’ve not addressed here). Most, but not all, Protestants accept those arguments in believing that the Lord’s Supper does not involve the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, all theological errors are reasonable to those who hold them. This fact is one of the greatest arguments for the need for a single, visible, authoritative Church which can separate truth from error.
 
I have a question for my protestant brothers and sisters.
Do your communion wafers ever bleed in the Protestant churches; have you ever heard of this happening in a protestant church?
I am not saying that this is a proof, or if it is a sign from God or anything like that, I am just curious if this is just a Catholic phenomenon, or if it also happens in churches that believe the bread is only a symbol?
I have never seen it, but I had a priest at my parish that said that when he was in seminary, it happened to one of his fellow Eucharistic ministers, he did see it and said that it did appear to be blood and I have no reason to doubt him.

Here is a web site about Eucharist miracles in case you have not heard of any of this.
Eucharist Miracles
 
runandsew said:
I have a question for my protestant brothers and sisters.
Do your communion wafers ever bleed in the Protestant churches; have you ever heard of this happening in a protestant church?
Click to expand...
Not to my knowledge. Any other Protestants hear of this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top