Why is it that Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence?? It's in The Bible

[stefany379]

the Real Presence of Jesus in our Tabernacles is a Divine Mystery. During Holy Mass at the moment of the Consecration, when the priest pronounces Jesus’ divine words “This is my body…this is the chalice of my blood” (Mt 26:26-27), the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus. The substances of bread and of wine are no longer there, because they have been changed “transubstantiated” - into the Divine Body and Blood of Jesus. The bread and wine keep only their appearances, to express the reality of food and drink, according to Jesus’ words " My flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink." (Jn 6:56).
Beneath the veil of the host, therefore, and within the chalice, is the Divine Person of Jesus with His Body, Blood soul and Divinity, who gives Himself to whoever receives Holy Communion, and remains continually in the consecrated Hosts placed in the Tabernacle. St. Ambrose wrote “How is the change of bread into the Body of Christ brought about?” It is by means of the Consecration. With what words is the Consecration accomplished? With the words of Jesus. When the moment arrives for working this sacred wonder, the priest ceases himself to speak; he speaks in the person of Jesus."

 

[rbarcia]

Why don’t catholics believe in Real Presence of Jesus inside vines or doors.

**

John 10: 7

7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

John 15:1-3

1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;[a] and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

**

If you read a couple sentences out of context, you may get that impression. But if you follow the dialog, the people who were fed by Jesus, came looking for more food, instead of being satisfied with Jesus, who is true spiritual food. Why did he not offer them communion there then?

The Whole context of the conversation is BELIEVING IN HIM Who the Father sent
**

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.”
…

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.

…

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 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. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

**

The verse does not say "I am the bread of life you will enter millions of pieces of bread daily to be offerred again and again. The bread of life was right in front of them.

**

Hebrews 10

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

**

 

[Image_of_God]

Some Protestants do believe in the Real Prescence. Just not the way that the Orthodox and Catholics have be doing for 2,000 years.

 

[Frost]

the Real Presence of Jesus in our Tabernacles is a Divine Mystery. During Holy Mass at the moment of the Consecration, when the priest pronounces Jesus’ divine words “This is my body…this is the chalice of my blood” (Mt 26:26-27), the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus. The substances of bread and of wine are no longer there, because they have been changed “transubstantiated” - into the Divine Body and Blood of Jesus. The bread and wine keep only their appearances, to express the reality of food and drink, according to Jesus’ words " My flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink." (Jn 6:56).
Beneath the veil of the host, therefore, and within the chalice, is the Divine Person of Jesus with His Body, Blood soul and Divinity, who gives Himself to whoever receives Holy Communion, and remains continually in the consecrated Hosts placed in the Tabernacle. St. Ambrose wrote “How is the change of bread into the Body of Christ brought about?” It is by means of the Consecration. With what words is the Consecration accomplished? With the words of Jesus. When the moment arrives for working this sacred wonder, the priest ceases himself to speak; he speaks in the person of Jesus."

I’m a Lutheran, and we do believe in the Real Presence. But we don’t believe in any “fancy” theory trying to explain the mystery. It is the belief in the THEORY of transubstantion we reject, not the mystery of the Real Presence itself.

Reformed Christians, on the other hand, reject the Real Presence.

 

[awantz]

Some protestants do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[Shellie]

rbarcia:

Why don’t catholics believe in Real Presence of Jesus inside vines or doors.

You will find that the verses you’ve referenced have been expounded on in Catholic Answers’ Christ in the Eucharist.

The door, the vine, the words are spirit … it’s in there.

 

[Sixtus]

Rbacia is giving evidence in the Real Presence. Note the texts below

Then Jesus said to them again,

“Most assuredly

, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

John 15:1-3

1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.

‘I tell your the truth, this is the very truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will have no life in you’.

Do you notice the difference? Only in respect of the Blessed Sacrament does the Lord say 'I TELL YOU THE TRUTH, THE VERY TRUTH. NO WHERE ELSE DOES HE SAY THAT.

That proves the Protestants are heretics in denying His real presence

 

[stefany379]

Some Protestants do believe in the Real Prescence. Just not the way that the Orthodox and Catholics have be doing for 2,000 years.

but if it has been going on for 2,000 years, well, I’ll let you figure that one out…

 

[VociMike]

Why don’t catholics believe in Real Presence of Jesus inside vines or doors.

Excellent question, and when I tell you the answer you’ll slap your forehead at how simple it is.

We don’t believe that Jesus is a literal vine because we know that we are not literal branches. We don’t believe that Jesus is a literal door because we know that we are not literal sheep. So you see, when Jesus is speaking of Himself figuratively He gives us unmistakable clues by also referring to us in ways that we can use to judge the literalness of the image. Another one that Protestants like to bring up is the Living Water, but in that case Jesus also said that a well of living water would spring up in our breasts, and we know that believers do not literally have a spring of water welling up from their breasts. So Jesus is perfectly consistent in all of these images of Himself.

“This is my body, this is my blood” is an entirely different situation. Jesus does not say anything about us that we know is not literally true. In fact, He tells us that we must eat and drink, and eating and drinking is something that humans actually can do, quite literally. So that is even more evidence that Christ was speaking quite literally in these passages.

Add to this the fact that Jesus previously said that believers must eat the living bread that He would provide, and that the living bread was the same flesh that He would give for the life of the world, and the case is complete. For the flesh that Christ gave for the life of the world was not His teachings or belief in Him, but His actual, literal flesh on the cross. Otherwise, we could be saved by believing in Him even if He never died on the cross, and both Protestants or Catholics know this is false.

Are you slapping your forehead now?

 

[VociMike]

I’m a Lutheran, and we do believe in the Real Presence. But we don’t believe in any “fancy” theory trying to explain the mystery. It is the belief in the THEORY of transubstantion we reject, not the mystery of the Real Presence itself.

Just a comment. Transubstantiation is anything but a “fancy” theory. It is not even a theory, but only a restatement of what Christ said. “Transubstantion” simply means “this is my body, this is my blood”, or to put it another way, “This is now Jesus. The bread and wine no longer exist, even though it appears that they do.” Not fancy, very simple. As simple as Christ’s use of the simple word “is”.

 

[Frost]

If you say so, VociMike…

 

[VociMike]

If you say so, VociMike…

Do you disagree with anything I said?

 

[Steadfast]

This is a kind of “have you stopped beating your wife” kind of question.

Of course some of us do believe in the Real Presence. Many Anglicans do, and it is a core Lutheran doctrine, of course.

But as soon as we say we do believe in the Real Presence, you’ll smack us real quick with “Ha! You can’t believe in the Real Presence because you don’t have validly ordained ministers, neener neener boo boo.”

 

[Steadfast]

Just a comment. Transubstantiation is anything but a “fancy” theory. It is not even a theory, but only a restatement of what Christ said. “Transubstantion” simply means “this is my body, this is my blood”, or to put it another way, “This is now Jesus. The bread and wine no longer exist, even though it appears that they do.” Not fancy, very simple. As simple as Christ’s use of the simple word “is”.

Lutherans have difficulty with this because such an understanding of the sacrament imposes on it an aristotelian construction foreign to what the plain text of Scripture relates.

Everywhere in the Bible, when the Sacrament is mentioned, it is referred to alternately as Body and Blood or bread and wine (sometimes the latter is referred to simply as “the cup”). There is no very apparent reason to assume that this is a sort of metonymy or metaphor. Rather, the plainest sense would be that, in the Sacrament, we receive not only the Body and Blood of our Lord, broken and shed for us, but also the bread and wine in, with and under which it is given.

It has often seemed to me that this doctrine of trasubstantiation, incarnationally speaking, is a species of Sacramental Nestorianism, or, possibly even Docetism since it so denigrates the common elements as to do away with them utterly, focussing solely on the divine presence in the meal.

 

[VociMike]

Lutherans have difficulty with this because such an understanding of the sacrament imposes on it an aristotelian construction foreign to what the plain text of Scripture relates.

What is plainer than “this is my body”?

Everywhere in the Bible, when the Sacrament is mentioned, it is referred to alternately as Body and Blood or bread and wine (sometimes the latter is referred to simply as “the cup”). There is no very apparent reason to assume that this is a sort of metonymy or metaphor. Rather, the plainest sense would be that, in the Sacrament, we receive not only the Body and Blood of our Lord, broken and shed for us, but also the bread and wine in, with and under which it is given.

You would have a defensible point if the entire deposit of faith were found in the bible, and if the Church had taught consubstantiation always and everwhere. But since neither of these is the case…

It has often seemed to me that this doctrine of trasubstantiation, incarnationally speaking, is a species of Sacramental Nestorianism, or, possibly even Docetism since it so denigrates the common elements as to do away with them utterly, focussing solely on the divine presence in the meal.

Nestorianism? I can’t see the connection at all. If anything, it is consubstantiation that would seem to have Nestorian leanings.

Docetism? Again I can’t see the connection. Are you suggesting that Jesus has somehow taken on the nature of bread and wine? That He has Incarnated as both fully God and fully bread and wine?

 

[Frost]

Do you disagree with anything I said?

I think Steadfast said it for me

 

[Cat]

Jesus often described Himself using earthly objects:

I am the Door.

I am the Light of the World.

I am the Bread of Life.

etc.

But only ONCE in Scripture did He take up earthly objects and say, “This bread is My Body. This wine is My Blood.”

He never pointed to a door and said, “This door is Me.”

He never pointed to a light and said, “This light is Me.”

He never pointed to any object and said, “This is Me.”–except once.

He took bread and wine and said, “These objects are Me. The bread is My Body, the wine is My Blood.”

 

[Steadfast]

Well, with all due respect, your Jesus would not be saying “This is my Body” but rather, “I know it looks like bread, but it’s not; really its my Body.” My position is that when He said, “This is my Body” no further clarification was necessary.

Your position is further from the plain sentence than mine is since it requires considerably more than just a sacramental union of the elements with our Lord. It requires a good measure of philosophy in addition to faith.

The reference to Nestorianism and Docetism were in relation to the natures of the elements as compared to the relation of Christ’s natures in the Incarnation.

Nestorianism denies that Christ’s human and divine natures are inseperable. Transubstantiation denies that the bread and wine are inseperable from the Body and Blood.

Docetism says that Christ only appeared to have a body after His resurrection. Transubstantiation says that the bread and wine only appear to remain in the Sacrament.

It was an analogy, not a charge of heresy. I just see the reasoning as being of a piece with the kind of reasoning that led men into these errors.

 

[VociMike]

Well, with all due respect, your Jesus would not be saying “This is my Body” but rather, “I know it looks like bread, but it’s not; really its my Body.” My position is that when He said, “This is my Body” no further clarification was necessary.

Well, humans being what they are, they like clarification. I have read that within a few years of the start of the Protestant Reformation a book was published in Germany that listed some 200 different understandings of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. That would be 200 Protestant clarifications. So this is by no means a Catholic issue.

Your position is further from the plain sentence than mine is since it requires considerably more than just a sacramental union of the elements with our Lord. It requires a good measure of philosophy in addition to faith.

You say “just a sacramental union” as though it’s the most natural idea in the world, but it’s not. There is plenty of opportunity to philosophise as to the nature of such a union. See book reference above.

The reference to Nestorianism and Docetism were in relation to the natures of the elements as compared to the relation of Christ’s natures in the Incarnation.

Nestorianism denies that Christ’s human and divine natures are inseperable. Transubstantiation denies that the bread and wine are inseperable from the Body and Blood.

But Christ never took on the nature of bread and wine.

Docetism says that Christ only appeared to have a body after His resurrection. Transubstantiation says that the bread and wine only appear to remain in the Sacrament.

But Christ never took on the nature of bread and wine.

It was an analogy, not a charge of heresy. I just see the reasoning as being of a piece with the kind of reasoning that led men into these errors.

But the analogies are too fundamentally flawed to be useful. They require beliefs about Christ that are simply false.

 

[jim1130]

Why don’t catholics believe in Real Presence of Jesus inside vines or doors.John 10: 7

7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

John 15:1-3

1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;[a] and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

If you read a couple sentences out of context, you may get that impression. But if you follow the dialog, the people who were fed by Jesus, came looking for more food, instead of being satisfied with Jesus, who is true spiritual food. Why did he not offer them communion there then?

The Whole context of the conversation is BELIEVING IN HIM Who the Father sent
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.”
…

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.
…The verse does not say "I am the bread of life you will enter millions of pieces of bread daily to be offerred again and again. The bread of life was right in front of them.

Hebrews 10

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Peace.

Just as you shared your misinterpretation of repetitious prayer, so do you share your misinterpretation of the Real Presence.

1. I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
2. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
3. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
4. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
5. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
6. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
7. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
8. But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
9. If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
10. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

If you look at these verses, you will notice that 6 times there is a specific and direct reference to Christ’s “MY flesh and my blood.” He emphasizes and differentiates that He is speaking of His flesh and blood.

Then, all of a sudden, Christ says, in verse 64, “THE flesh,” not “HIS flesh.” If Christ had been so careful to ensure that He has emphasized “His flesh and blood” then it is also apparent that when he uses the term “the flesh” it indicates he is no longer speaking of himself, of His flesh, anymore, for it is His flesh that profits everything, but “the (our) flesh” profits nothing.

Christ was a master communicator. I doubt He miscommunicated. Had He done so then he would have corrected the misunderstanding as He had done previously (refer to Matthew 16:5-12, John 3:1-5, 22, and John 10:10-16).