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

[jim1130]

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.

Matthew 26: 26-28.
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14: 22-24.
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22: 19-20.
And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

John 6: 32-72.

1 Corinthians Chapter 11:23-26.
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.

1 Corinthians Chapter 10:16. The chalice of benediction which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

From these words, there are no references of “symbolism” or “representation.” In fact, it is important of the placement of the word “is” in Jesus’ statements.

Look here what St. Ignatius of Antioch, Disciple of St. John the apostle and bishop of the church in Antioch wrote in his letter to the church in Smyrna. CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS. — They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Also:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made 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.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

 

[Steadfast]

Mike,

Thanks for your response.

I know that Our Lord’s natures are not bread and wine.

It may not be fundamentally useful but I believe it to be a valid insight that it is exactly the same kind of spirit which pervaded the worst in scholasticism and which gave us ideas like transubstantiation that existed also in the hearts of those men who also separated the natures of Christ or, on the other hand denied His humanity. They did these things because they could not conceive of a union of the natures and devised clever philosophies to support themselves.

This is the spirit which prompted Tertullian to ask, “What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?”

No one is advocating a retreat into fideism, reason is a good thing if it is used properly, but it is fallen just as surely as the flesh and too much adherence to philosophy, when it adds no real insight to the plain Word of God should be avoided.

So, speaking of “usefulness” I am prompted to ask a question or two:

1. 
   *]What in the Biblical account of the institution would lead one to conclude transubstantiation? And if you object that the Church needs no biblical mandate, then surely it is reasonable to expect such an innovation to have some use, so
   *]What is gained by such an understanding?

 

[estesbob]

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.”

The answer is that although you beleive in the real presence, you dont have it in your Church. Only Catholics have the real thing!

 

[Steadfast]

The answer is that although you beleive in the real presence, you dont have it in your Church. Only Catholics have the real thing!

Sez you

 

[jim1130]

Sez you

From “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott, Ph.D., 4th Edition, 1960, pp. 372-373:

Luther: Admitted the Real Presence, but only during the celebration of Holy Communion. In contrast to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, he assumed co-existence of the true Body and Blood of Christ with the substance of the bread and wine (consubstantiation).

Zwingli: Denied the Real Presence, and declared the bread and wine to be mere symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Holy Communion is, according to him, only a commemoration of our Redemption through the death of Christ, and a confession of our faith by the community.

Calvin: Took a middle path. He rejected the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, but accepted a presence of power (dynamic presence). Through the use of bread and wine, a power proceeding from the transfigured Body of Christ in Heaven, is conferred on the faithful.

Liberal Protestantism: Of the present day denies that Christ intended to institute the Eucharist, and maintains that Jesus’ Last Supper was a mere parting meal.

Do you disagree with all of these?

 

[Steadfast]

From “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott, Ph.D., 4th Edition, 1960, pp. 372-373:

Luther: Admitted the Real Presence, but only during the celebration of Holy Communion. In contrast to the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, he assumed co-existence of the true Body and Blood of Christ with the substance of the bread and wine (consubstantiation).

Zwingli: Denied the Real Presence, and declared the bread and wine to be mere symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Holy Communion is, according to him, only a commemoration of our Redemption through the death of Christ, and a confession of our faith by the community.

Calvin: Took a middle path. He rejected the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, but accepted a presence of power (dynamic presence). Through the use of bread and wine, a power proceeding from the transfigured Body of Christ in Heaven, is conferred on the faithful.

Liberal Protestantism: Of the present day denies that Christ intended to institute the Eucharist, and maintains that Jesus’ Last Supper was a mere parting meal.

Do you disagree with all of these?

I’m Lutheran so I agree with Luther, but we don;t call it consubstantiation, that’s far too fancy and aristotelian and injects philosophy into what is simply an act of faith.

We say, rather, that we recieve, when we receive the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus’ Body and Blood broken and shed for us Christians and that we really receive it into our mouths to eat.

 

[jim1130]

I’m Lutheran so I agree with Luther, but we don;t call it consubstantiation, that’s far too fancy and aristotelian and injects philosophy into what is simply an act of faith.

We say, rather, that we recieve, when we receive the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus’ Body and Blood broken and shed for us Christians and that we really receive it into our mouths to eat.

I learned that the best way to accurately interpret something is to repeat what has been said using one’s own words thereby allowing the original speaker to clarify misconceptions. Using my own words, let me repeat what I read and then you can clarify any errors, okay?

For you, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is an act of commemoration with the bread and wine as representative of Christ and the sacrifice on Calvary rather than the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ?

 

[Steadfast]

I learned that the best way to accurately interpret something is to repeat what has been said using one’s own words thereby allowing the original speaker to clarify misconceptions. Using my own words, let me repeat what I read and then you can clarify any errors, okay?

For you, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is an act of commemoration with the bread and wine as representative of Christ and the sacrifice on Calvary rather than the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ?

No.

The bread and wine don’t “represent” Christ.

They are Christ.

 

[estesbob]

I learned that the best way to accurately interpret something is to repeat what has been said using one’s own words thereby allowing the original speaker to clarify misconceptions. Using my own words, let me repeat what I read and then you can clarify any errors, okay?

For you, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is an act of commemoration with the bread and wine as representative of Christ and the sacrifice on Calvary rather than the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ?

No-the bread and wine do not “represent” Christ . they are, as he promised us, his physical body and blood. When i received the eucharist this morning I held our Lord and savior in my hand and then followed his admonition to eat his body and drink his blood. The man I held in my hand was the physcially the same man who died on the cross for me and who rose from the dead.

 

[jim1130]

No.

The bread and wine don’t “represent” Christ.

They are Christ.

Okay, thank you. And the bread and wine remain Christ for the duration of their existence?

No trick question and no agenda here. Just trying to understand.

 

[jim1130]

No-the bread and wine do not “represent” Christ . they are, as he promised us, his physical body and blood. When i received the eucharist this morning I held our Lord and savior in my hand and then followed his admonition to eat his body and drink his blood. The man I held in my hand was the physcially the same man who died on the cross for me and who rose from the dead.

Peace. Yes, I am Cahtolic and believe in the Real Presence. I was asking Steadfast to help me better understand the Lutheran position. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Steadfast]

Okay, thank you. And the bread and wine remain Christ for the duration of their existence?

No trick question and no agenda here. Just trying to understand.

It’s called a sacramental union.

We understand the whole action of the sacrament to include faithful reception.

Most Lutherans would say that unconsumed elements revert to being simple bread and wine, though there is some disagreement.

In actual practice the bread is reverently reserved and the remaining wine is consumed.

 

[estesbob]

Peace. Yes, I am Cahtolic and believe in the Real Presence. I was asking Steadfast to help me better understand the Lutheran position. Sorry for the confusion.

soapboxsmileys.smileycentral.com/cus/e_1_59.gif Oh well-I got to get on my soapbox anyway!

 

[jim1130]

It’s called a sacramental union.

We understand the whole action of the sacrament to include faithful reception.

Most Lutherans would say that unconsumed elements revert to being simple bread and wine, though there is some disagreement.

In actual practice the bread is reverently reserved and the remaining wine is consumed.

Thank you.

 

[jim1130]

soapboxsmileys.smileycentral.com/cus/e_1_59.gif Oh well-I got to get on my soapbox anyway!

No biggie. Just did not want you to put forth a lot of effort.

 

[VociMike]

Mike,

Thanks for your response.

And thank you for yours as well.

So, speaking of “usefulness” I am prompted to ask a question or two:

1. 
   *]What in the Biblical account of the institution would lead one to conclude transubstantiation? And if you object that the Church needs no biblical mandate, then surely it is reasonable to expect such an innovation to have some use, so
   *]What is gained by such an understanding?

1. 
   Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
   And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
   for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
   
   I could quote the other narratives as well, but you get my point.
   
   What is gained by such an understanding? What is gained by the correct understanding of the Incarnation, as it has been revealed by God? What is gained by the correct understaning of the Trinity, as it has been revealed by God? What is gained by the correct understanding of any of God’s revelation?

 

[Steadfast]

Mike,

The Lutheran view takes the words of Jesus every bit as seriously as the Catholic.

What is gained by the correct understanding of the Incarnation, as it has been revealed by God?

A proper doctrine of God is gained by the correct understanding of the Incarnation as well as a proper and full orbed understanding of salvation.

Besides the doctrine of the Incarnation (God became a man and dwelt among us), is explicitly taught in Scripture.

What is gained by the correct understaning of the Trinity, as it has been revealed by God?

A correct understanding of the Trinity helps us understand that God lives in community and that His nature is one of family and union of purpose among the Persons.

Besides the doctrine of the Trinity, while not explicitly stated in Scripture can be clearly exegeted therefrom.

What is gained by the correct understanding of any of God’s revelation?

Good question.

I believe the Sacraments are given for Christians as real means of Grace. I believe the Bible teaches this. I don’t believe that there is any binding revelation beyond what Scripture teaches or what can be clearly inferred from Scripture (the Trinity and the Incarnation are good examples of this latter).

As such, a correct understanding of how God comes to us in the Sacraments of the Church is very important and pictures very vividly the Incarnation itself.

More generally, a correct understanding of anything God has revealed gains us insight into the nature and will of our God.

I do not believe, however, that the mental perambulations of the schoolmen qualify as “revelation”.

Transubstantiation was unknown before the middle ages.

The real presence was certainly known, but it wasn’t formulated as transubstantiation until that time.

Transubstantiation remains an innovation theologically speaking.

It’s not terribly heretical, mind you, because it does violence to no other revealed dogma. It just adds to and superfluously augments something that was given for our simple nourishment and communion.

 

[pismopal]

Mike,The Lutheran view takes the words of Jesus every bit as seriously as the Catholic.A proper doctrine of God is gained by the correct understanding of the Incarnation as well as a proper and full orbed understanding of salvation.Besides the doctrine of the Incarnation (God became a man and dwelt among us), is explicitly taught in Scripture.* A correct understanding of the Trinity helps us understand that God lives in community and that His nature is one of family and union of purpose among the Persons. Besides the doctrine of the Trinity, while not explicitly stated in Scripture can be clearly exegeted therefrom.Good question.I believe the Sacraments are given for Christians as real means of Grace. I believe the Bible teaches this. I don’t believe that there is any binding revelation beyond what Scripture teaches or what can be clearly inferred from Scripture (the Trinity and the Incarnation are good examples of this latter).As such, a correct understanding of how God comes to us in the Sacraments of the Church is very important and pictures very vividly the Incarnation itself.More generally, a correct understanding of anything God has revealed gains us insight into the nature and will of our God.I do not believe, however, that the mental perambulations of the schoolmen qualify as “revelation”.Transubstantiation was unknown before the middle ages.The real presence was certainly known, but it wasn’t formulated as transubstantiation until that time.Transubstantiation remains an innovation theologically speaking.It’s not terribly heretical, mind you, because it does violence to no other revealed dogma. It just adds to and superfluously augments something that was given for our simple nourishment and communion.

Transubstatiation is no more an innovation than is the Law of Thermodynamics. It took awhile to explain but that does not make it an “innovation.” It is a miracle anyway and difficult to “explain”…

 

[AllSaints1631]

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."

Another generalization about Protestants. Not all Protestants discard Real Presence.

 

[justinthemartyr]

rbarcia

Jesus never held up a door and said this is me.
Jesus never held up a vine and said this is me.

neither did he bless them before making the statement.

Jesus DID hold up bread and wine and blessed them and said take eat, this IS my Body, Blood, which will be given up for you.

Jesus spent more time in the gospels on this teaching than any other, and when challenged on the validity he repeated himself again and again literally, something which he did not do when telling them that He is the door by which to get to heaven, because he is a type of door. and a type of vine and we are types of branches in the we must remain grafted into Him, the true vine, else we will be cut off, wither and burned up as romans 11 and john 15 state.