Why is the Real Presence a necessary belief for Catholics?

[catholic1seeks]

Please read the writings of the post-New Testament church to see what the correct interpretation of the Eucharist is. At least, looking at what the early Christians believed and practiced should help you see that it is a inherently authentic Christian belief. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria until the early AD 100s said in one of his writings that the HERETICS are the ones who do not confess the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ.

That this belief is the true Christian belief is testified by the early writings and the fact that this is the teaching of all apostolic churches (those churches reaching back to the Apostles), namely other non-Catholic Eastern churches, in addition to the Catholic Church.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Baptists are protestants.

If they did they’d leave protestantism and become Catholics

Not ALL Protestants are Baptists, therefore it is incorrect to ascribe to “Protestants” what should be ascribed to Baptists (or their offshoots)

You have little appreciation for the spirituality of Protestantism. In comparison to Catholicity, of course, it is very much crippled and incomplete. But many Protestants are very devout Christians. Some of our BEST Catholics were former devout Protestants. Do not forget that.

 

[steve_b]

Not ALL Protestants are Baptists, therefore it is incorrect to ascribe to “Protestants” what should be ascribed to Baptists (or their offshoots)

It’s Protestantism
A:

Protestantism. In comparison to Catholicity, of course, it is very much crippled and incomplete.

I agree
A:

Some of our BEST Catholics were former devout Protestants. Do not forget that.

Wait a minute,

When you said previously " Many Protestants believe in the real presence." #38 + “Some of our BEST Catholics were former devout Protestants. Do not forget that” #41

Q: How does that differ from what I said to you “If they did (i.e. believe in the real presence) they’d leave protestantism and become Catholics” #39

A: We’re saying the same thing. You create a distinction where there is no difference.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

steve b:

Wait a minute,

When you said previously " Many Protestants believe in the real presence." #38 + “Some of our BEST Catholics were former devout Protestants. Do not forget that” #41

Q: How does that differ from what I said to you “If they did (i.e. believe in the real presence) they’d leave protestantism and become Catholics” #39

A: We’re saying the same thing. You create a distinction where there is no difference.

No, we’re saying two different things. I am saying that devout Protestants are good Christians whether they ever convert to Catholicism or not. You are saying (if I am not misunderstanding) that devout Protestants will THEREFORE convert to Catholicism.

I gave the example of the great Catholics that converted from Protestantism NOT because they DID convert, but because they were already devout Protestants before they converted. IOW, they have a REAL spirituality and relationship with Jesus within Protestantism. I was objecting to that reality being dismissed.

They may EVENTUALLY convert (we hope,) but that is not a given by any means.

 

[frangiuliano115]

You are describing Baptists not Protestants. Many Protestants believe in the real presence.

All Baptists are Protestants, but not all Protestants are Baptist; you’re right of course.

I’m just wondering: Which protestants would you say believe in the Real Presence, AmbroseSJ?? I can’t think of any; unless maybe a separated, non-denominational church which broke off from a Catholic Church. (schism).

I know of this happening to a church on Long Island in New York.

I’d appreciate the enlightening.

God bless you

 

[AmbroseSJ]

All Baptists are Protestants, but not all Protestants are Baptist; you’re right of course.

I’m just wondering: Which protestants would you say believe in the Real Presence, AmbroseSJ?? I can’t think of any; unless maybe a separated, non-denominational church which broke off from a Catholic Church. (schism).

I know of this happening to a church on Long Island in New York.

I’d appreciate the enlightening.

God bless you

Lutherans and Anglicans (Episcopalians) as well as most Presbyterians and some Methodists.

But remember, belief in the Real Presence does not equal belief in Transubstantiation.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Lutherans and Anglicans (Episcopalians) as well as most Presbyterians and some Methodists.

But remember, belief in the Real Presence does not equal belief in Transubstantiation.

Thanks. I thought all protestants believed in the host (or bread) being a symbol only.

Will have to study up on the difference between the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. (I know about transubstantiation).

God bless you

 

[steve_b]

No, we’re saying two different things. I am saying that devout Protestants are good Christians whether they ever convert to Catholicism or not.

I need some clarification here.

you previously said “Protestantism. In comparison to Catholicity, of course, it is very much crippled and incomplete”.

So here’s my question, how exactly does that make them “good” Christians? Especially considering their religions ( regardless of stripe) is considered one of the Great Heresies in history

look through the list of heresies. If you put devout in front of each of those heresies, does it make ANY of them “good” Christians as a result?

iow, can a person be a devout pelagian, and be a “good” Christian?

keep this point in mind for the final question at the bottom of the page
A:

You are saying (if I am not misunderstanding) that devout Protestants will THEREFORE convert to Catholicism.

How about if I answer you with a quote from a former Protestant.

“to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant”

Why did John Henry Cardinal Newman make that point?
A:

I gave the example of the great Catholics that converted from Protestantism NOT because they DID convert, but because they were already devout Protestants before they converted.

Truth is, They became great AFTER they converted.
A:

IOW, they have a REAL spirituality and relationship with Jesus within Protestantism. I was objecting to that reality being dismissed.

is it then perfectly okay to be protestant? No problems at all if one remains protestant?
A:

They may EVENTUALLY convert (we hope,) but that is not a given by any means.

But in your words, “they have a REAL spirituality and relationship with Jesus within Protestantism”. If so why convert?

Re: heresy and heretics which gets to “necessary beliefs” (the topic of the thread)

Paul makes a huge and tightly worded statement

[Titus 3:10 (Titus 3:10 RSVCE - As for a man who is factious, after - Bible Gateway)
“As for a man who is factious ( [αἱρετικὸν (http://bibleapps.com/greek/141.htm) heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

As an aside, to be a formal heretic

• 2089"*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
• therefore one must 1st be baptized which makes one a christian
• they refuse to be corrected from their error

to be a material heretic, one must 1st be baptized, and then believe in heretical beliefs. They haven’t yet been taught the correct teaching. If they formally reject that belief they become a formal heretic

therefore, IMV, we get to the real issue of the thread

Why is the Real Presence a necessary belief for Catholics

In extension, How many people are formal heretics on this subject vs how many are material heretics?

 

[steve_b]

Lutherans and Anglicans (Episcopalians) as well as most Presbyterians and some Methodists.

But remember, belief in the Real Presence does not equal belief in Transubstantiation.

without valid holy orders, bread and wine remain bread and wine.

BTW, which one of those mentioned has eucharistic adoration?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Steve:

If they did they’d leave protestantism and become Catholics.

Or become Orthodox.
Or be part of a Protestant communion that believes in the real presence. The Catholic understanding is not the only understanding of the Real Presence. (Even some Orthodox will not accept Transubstantiation.)

 

[steve_b]

Steve:

Or become Orthodox.

The Melkite rite was Catholic then Orthodox, then back to Catholic

Bp John writes
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

Bottomline, One either follows Our Lord’s design the way He designeed His Church or they don’t.
c:

Or be part of a Protestant communion that believes in the real presence.

without valid holy orders no protestants (no matter the stripe) have the real presence in the Eucharist.
c:

The Catholic understanding is not the only understanding of the Real Presence. (Even some Orthodox will not accept Transubstantiation.)

Are you thinking all understandings are true, or equal?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Bottomline, One either follows Our Lord’s design the way He designeed His Church or they don’t.

Of course, one is either formally a member of the Catholic Church or not. But that does not mean an individual is not following Christ, to the extent that he or she is able to. Jesus said “whoever is not against us is for us.” As long as you are following Christ, loving God due to his divine presence in your soul, then you are part of his body, the Church, in some way.

without valid holy orders no protestants (no matter the stripe) have the real presence in the Eucharist.

But it does not follow that a person who believes in the Real Presence will therefore conclude that he or she should be Catholic. After all, it is (probably) only the Catholic understanding that non-Catholic (& non-Orthodox etc.) Christians do not have a valid Eucharist.

 

[steve_b]

Of course, one is either formally a member of the Catholic Church or not. But that does not mean an individual is not following Christ, to the extent that he or she is able to.

Example?
c:

Jesus said “whoever is not against us is for us.” As long as you are following Christ, loving God due to his divine presence in your soul, then you are part of his body, the Church, in some way.

Jesus had more to say on that matter.He didn’t just leave it at that

Matthew 18:15-18 , John 17:20-23
c:

But it does not follow that a person who believes in the Real Presence will therefore conclude that he or she should be Catholic. After all, it is (probably) only the Catholic understanding that non-Catholic (& non-Orthodox etc.) Christians do not have a valid Eucharist.

You’re assuming Non Catholic understanding overrides Catholic Church authority.

 

[GKC]

without valid holy orders, bread and wine remain bread and wine.

BTW, which one of those mentioned has eucharistic adoration?

Some Anglicans.

And, as noted, those who are not RC, or in communion with the RCC, but believe in the real presence (and in some cases, in transubstantiation as the description of how that comes about in the confection of the sacrament), do not accept the judgement of Apostolicae Curae (or similar statements on other Churches) as to the validity of their orders.You must and should affirm Leo XIII in that. Others need not.

 

[frangiuliano115]

steveb in post no. 47 says:

“So here’s my question, how exactly does that make them “good” Christians? Especially considering their religions ( regardless of stripe) is considered one of the Great Heresies in history”.

What makes anyone a good Christian??? Jesus himself said that no one is good except His father in heaven.

The only thing that makes us “good” is that Jesus died for us, we believe it, and we’re hangin’ on to Him to get us to heaven. There’s nothing of our own that we could do to be “good” since we are born with the sin nature and are headed straight to hell unless we come to believe in Jesus. So of course you could be a “good” protestant or a “good” Catholic based ONLY on that. Not anything WE do.

Catholic1Seeks makes an excellent point in post no. 51: If you follow Christ you are part of His body.

And you know what? This is the most important thing. I’m Catholic, but you know, it’s not going to be our doctrine that saves us. Who knows. Maybe we got something wrong too and we’ll find out in heaven and it won’t even matter!

We’d like to put God into that little box - but He just won’t stay there.

I believe in transubstantiation and that Jesus meant everything He said in John 6:41-58. Let’s cut some slack to those who aren’t quite there yet, and may never be.

God Bless you
“a gentle answer turns away wrath
but a harsh word stirs up anger”.
Proverbs 15:1

Love and Peace

 

[Thorolfr]

Lutherans and Anglicans (Episcopalians) as well as most Presbyterians and some Methodists.

But remember, belief in the Real Presence does not equal belief in Transubstantiation.

I’m not sure that Presbyterians who are basically Calvinists and one of the Reformed churches believe in the Real Presence in the same way as Lutherans and some Anglicans. For example:

Reformed/Presbyterian: "spiritual presence"

Many Reformed, particularly those following John Calvin, hold that the reality of Christ’s body and blood do not come corporally (physically) to the elements, but that “the Spirit truly unites things separated in space” (Calvin).

Reformed theology has traditionally taught that Jesus’ body is seated in heaven at the right hand of God; therefore his body is not physically present in the elements, nor do the elements turn into his body in a physical or any objective sense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist

I was reading recently about the Colloquy of Poissy in Nancy Goldstone’s new book, The Rival Queens: Catherine de’ Medici, Her Daughter Marguerite de Valois, and the Betrayal that Ignited a Kingdom (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2015). The colloquy involved negotiations between Protestant Huguenots and Catholics in France in 1561 and the Protestants were represented by Theodore Beza, one of John Calvin’s lieutenants (p. 59):

Although [Beza] did his best to stress areas of potential agreement between the two religions, he was unable to contain himself when it came to the subject of the observance of the Mass and slipped in a direct barb at his Catholic adversaries. “We say that His [Christ’s] body is as far removed from the bread and the wine as is heaven from earth,” Beza explained helpfully.

If he had suddenly turned a blazing scarlet from head to to toe and sported pointy ears, horns, a tail, and a pitchfork, Beza could not have shocked his audience more thoroughly. The aged cardinal of Tournon shuddered so violently that he nearly had a stroke on the spot. Even Catherine [de’ Medici] had a sense that this was perhaps taking the notion of reform a shade too far - the outraged cries of “Blasphemy! Blasphemy!” that greeted this unfortunate pronouncement no doubt allerted her to the problem - and she made haste to distance herself and her son the king [Charles IX] from so revolutionary a perspective.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

frangiuliano115:

I believe in transubstantiation and that Jesus meant everything He said in John 6:41-58. Let’s cut some slack to those who aren’t quite there yet, and may never be.

My point too.

Thorolfr:

I’m not sure that Presbyterians who are basically Calvinists and one of the Reformed churches believe in the Real Presence in the same way as Lutherans and some Anglicans.

Correct. However, they do believe in a type of Real Presence. They do NOT believe the Lord’s Supper is just symbolic like the Baptists. But they don’t hold to the physical presence like the Catholic Church either. They believe that it is between those two “extremes.” But as with all Protestant churches, ymmv.
steve b:

So here’s my question, how exactly does that make them “good” Christians?

Being “Catholic” does not automatically make you a good Christian, just as being Protestant does not automatically make you a bad Christian.
steve b:

How about if I answer you with a quote from a former Protestant.

“to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant”

Why did John Henry Cardinal Newman make that point?

It was a valid point. However Newman was “deep in history” for many years before he converted. I think Newman was saying that for some (perhaps) this would be a great help. Obviously not everyone is “deep in history.”

I’m glad you quoted Newman, as he was more than most, very sympathetic to the Protestant. He was absolutely against people converting unless they were willing and able to pay the price. Yes, he explained there would be a high price to pay in converting, and it should be very carefully considered. I believe Newman would have preferred a devout Protestant to a lax nominal Catholic.

 

[phil19034]

My point too.

Correct. However, they do believe in a type of Real Presence. They do NOT believe the Lord’s Supper is just symbolic like the Baptists. But they don’t hold to the physical presence like the Catholic Church either. They believe that it is between those two “extremes.” But as with all Protestant churches, ymmv.

Being “Catholic” does not automatically make you a good Christian, just as being Protestant does not automatically make you a bad Christian.

It was a valid point. However Newman was “deep in history” for many years before he converted. I think Newman was saying that for some (perhaps) this would be a great help. Obviously not everyone is “deep in history.”

I’m glad you quoted Newman, as he was more than most, very sympathetic to the Protestant. He was absolutely against people converting unless they were willing and able to pay the price. Yes, he explained there would be a high price to pay in converting, and it should be very carefully considered. I believe Newman would have preferred a devout Protestant to a lax nominal Catholic.

Real Presence means that the Eucharist becomes The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Presbyterians do not believe this. They would never have adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. They do not believe that the Sacrifice of the Mass transports us back to Calvary just like the Passover transports Jews back to the first Passover with Moses.

 

[jmcrae]

Real Presence means that the Eucharist becomes The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Presbyterians do not believe this. They would never have adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. They do not believe that the Sacrifice of the Mass transports us back to Calvary just like the Passover transports Jews back to the first Passover with Moses.

Presbyterians believe that Holy Communion is a Sacrament that conforms the soul to Christ. They believe in two Sacraments; the other is Baptism.

 

[steve_b]

Some Anglicans.

You mean those Anglicans who came back in union with the Catholic Church?

GKC:

And, as noted, those who are not RC, or in communion with the RCC, but believe in the real presence (and in some cases, in transubstantiation as the description of how that comes about in the confection of the sacrament), do not accept the judgement of Apostolicae Curae(or similar statements on other Churches) as to the validity of their orders.You must and should affirm Leo XIII in that. Others need not.

I see 2 different types , in your discriptions

1. 
   *]those who are not RC, or in communion with the RCC, but believe in the real presence (and in some cases, in transubstantiation as the description of how that comes about in the confection of the sacrament) i.e. Eastern Orthodox
   *]those who do not accept the judgement of Apostolicae Curae (or similar statements on other Churches) as to the validity of their orders…i.e. Anglicans
   
   As you know, the Catholic Church recognizes the Eastern Orthodox have valid orders. Protestants otoh, Don’t have valid orders. And yes there was an encyclical Re: Anglican orders . Apostolicae Curae
   
   Just thinking outloud,
   
   Who are Protestants in general, ultimately going to plead their case to when the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize validity in their orders?