Why is the Real Presence a necessary belief for Catholics?

[GKC]

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

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?

1. 
   No, in all cases, I’m speaking of Anglicans. Amongst which motley collection you will find folk who affirm Trent, Session XIII, with respect to the Eucharist. All sorts of Anglicans with all sorts of opinions.
   
   Last time I assisted at a Benediction and Exposition of the Blessed Body was a number of years ago, but it is certainly done amongst the motley crew.
   
   I have no particular thought of pleading a case, re: Anglican orders, to anyone. Though the long, sad, and complicated history of how* Apostolicae curae* (sometimes referred to as a Bull, sometimes an Apostolic Letter. Never seen it called an encyclical) came about, and its aftermath, from the first chance meeting on the island of Madeira in the winter of 1890, of a British nobleman, Charles Lindley, Second Viscount Halifax, and a young French priest, the Abbe Portal, through the endings of the Malines Conversations, 37 years later, has been a hobby of mine for 20 years or more. No pleading necessary. If anyone wishes to do so, fine by me.
   
   Apostolicae Curae is binding (at whatever degree of theological certainty is appropriate for it) on those who accept the authority of the RCC to make that determination. Other folks have other opinions and are not so bound.

 

[steve_b]

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

Jesus was testing the man. Jesus wanted to know the basis by which that man judged “good”.

Reading further, the man failed the test that Jesus gave him
f:

.

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.

are you suggesting faith alone ?
f:

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

He hasn’t answered my response yet #52
f:

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!

Can you name any doctrine the Catholic Church got wrong?
f:

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

what box are you talking about
f:

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.

Don’t stop with v 58

did Jesus cut any slack for those who couldn’t accept His teaching on the Eucharist? Nope. He let them go, AND He didn’t go after them. John 6:60-69

Why couldn’t they accept what Jesus was teaching them? **They had no faith **(v 65).

 

[steve_b]

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

What do they do with the remainder of the elements they use that aren’t consumed?

 

[Thorolfr]

What do they do with the remainder of the elements they use that aren’t consumed?

The last time I was in a Presbyterian church, the pastor swept up the bread crumbs from the loaf of bread that had been used for communion and threw them into the trash.

 

[catholic1seeks]

*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. *

Steve b: Example?

Sure.

Anyone who has grace in his or her soul is to some extent following Christ.

Any Christian who is validly baptized has Sanctifying Grace and Charity reigning in his heart.

Any person whom God wishes to save has Sanctifying Grace and Charity reigning in her heart.

Jesus had more to say on that matter.He didn’t just leave it at that
Matthew 18:15-18 , John 17:20-23

So tell me how church authority (Matthew 18) and Christ’s desire for unity (John 17) contradict what I have been saying?

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

No I’m not. You said someone who believed in the Real Presence should become Catholic. I said they may not see it that way because other Christians believe in the Real Presence as well.

 

[jmcrae]

What do they do with the remainder of the elements they use that aren’t consumed?

Since they don’t believe that the elements themselves change into Christ (in exactly the same way that they don’t believe that the water of Baptism actually turns into the Holy Spirit) they use up the remainder of the elements without worrying about desecrating them. In my personal experience I’ve never seen them thrown away, but I have seen them used as turkey stuffings.

 

[steve_b]

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

phrasing your example, using the same phrasing

Being “Catholic” does not automatically make you a good Christian]

just as

being Protestant does not automatically make you a -]bad /-] good Christian.]
A:

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.”

To be fair, connecting the dots is one thing, acting on the connection of those dots, is another thing. One who connects those dots, doesn’t necessarily act promptly to that knowledge.
A:

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.

I didn’t get that impression

Excerpt from the 1st page of the following link

"…And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. {8} Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicæa and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
6.
And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: “So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that ‘when they rose in the morning’ her true seed ‘were all dead corpses’…”

From His essay on “Development of Doctrine”
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html

This 1st page is also where he made his famous statement
“to be deep in history is to cease to be a protestant”

 

[steve_b]

Since they don’t believe that the elements themselves change into Christ (in exactly the same way that they don’t believe that the water of Baptism actually turns into the Holy Spirit)

That answers the question. There is No real presence for THEM in what they do
j:

they use up the remainder of the elements without worrying about desecrating them.

I’m not surprised.
j:

In my personal experience I’ve never seen them thrown away, but I have seen them used as turkey stuffings.

I’m not surprised.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Jesus was testing the man. Jesus wanted to know the basis by which that man judged “good”.

Reading further, the man failed the test that Jesus gave him

are you suggesting faith alone ?

He hasn’t answered my response yet #52

Can you name any doctrine the Catholic Church got wrong?

what box are you talking about

Don’t stop with v 58

did Jesus cut any slack for those who couldn’t accept His teaching on the Eucharist? Nope. He let them go, AND He didn’t go after them. John 6:60-69

Why couldn’t they accept what Jesus was teaching them? **They had no faith **(v 65).

Dear Steveb

You’ve been a member of this forum since 2004. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. I think you must realize that we’re trying to discuss spiritual matters with words. Not an easy task.

If you’re going to hang onto every word any of us say, this thread could go on till Jesus comes back!

But, to answer some of your questions:

Re who is good. You must realize there are so many ideas in this story of the rich man that it’s difficult to get into all of them. But direct your attention to Mathew 19:25 -26, after having read the whole story (not parable). What do you suppose is impossible with man but possible with God?? It is impossible for man to please God and he cannot be saved by his own efforts. The rich man said he followed all the commandments (quite a feat anyway!) so Jesus pushed him further. The rich young man just couldn’t give up his riches. Jesus asked him to do something very difficult for him. We ALL have things we find very difficult to do. This is why we cannot be “good”. Only with God can this be possible. It is possible for God to save us if we have faith in Him. Yes, the rich man failed the test, WE ALL FAIL THE TEST.

Steveb. Don’t be silly re faith alone. There we go again with words. Must I remember to say everything and can I not count on your intelligence?? I’m more than sure you’ve read James. Faith without works is dead. Faith leads to good works. Seems self-understood.

Can’t answer re post no. 52. It’s not mine and I don’t have enough time to go back and read everything.

Re our doctrines. Must we get into Papal infallability and all that? We have plenty of doctrines. Some don’t even seem biblical. Uh oh. Here we go with Tradition. Are we 100% sure they are all correct? We’re to accept them by faith. Okay. BUT what if one IS wrong? Whoa. Do we all end up in hell? No. Because it’s not our doctrines that will save us but Jesus. Here’s one doctrine just in case you want an example. Mary’s assumption to heaven. Don’t send me to Lumen Gentium please.

The Box. God is a FREE spirit (no pum intended). I mean, God can do what he wants to do. He can make up whatever rules he wishes. God is beyond our understanding and our grasp. So many things are mysteries. A mystery is something we could understand a little, but not completely. Do you have some mistaken notion of being able to understand God?? I’m sure you’ve read all of the above in your bible. The idea does come through.
Job 36:26, Job 37:5 and too many to list here incl the N.T. Every church portrays God in their own way. All the different doctrines. He, the creator of the universe, must think this is funny. Don’t get bent out of shape… So, yeah. I don’t think He likes being in that Box.

Let’s continue from verse 58 of John 6: Jesus let them go who couldn’t accept His teachings. Okay. So? Jesus doesn’t force you to follow Him. Of course he let them go. They decided to ABANDON him and move on. They COULD HAVE STAYED with Him and tried to understand what he said or just accepted it. But they CHOSE to LEAVE Him. Seems clear enough.

So, Steveb, I thank you for the mental stimulation and will not be continuing with this silliness. This thread is not silly, but how you hang on to every minute word.

I bid you a good night from the other side of the pond.

God bless you
Pease and Love

 

[AmbroseSJ]

steve b:

I didn’t get that impression

A couple of observations:

1. I am discussing Protestants, the Christians, not Protestantism the amalgam of various Reformation beliefs. Therefore we are NOT discussing heretics. Heretics are Catholics who start teaching erroneous beliefs in defiance of the bishop. Cradle Protestants, if they are baptized, are Christians. If they are devout Christians then all the better.
2. You understand Newman correctly as far as you go, but Newman had a prodigious written output. I am referring to his letters and diaries. He counseled many of his Anglican friends, and sometimes they were eager to convert. He sometimes found it necessary to ground them in the high price they would need to be prepared to pay when converting. Not something to do lightly. Of course he wanted everyone to convert, but only if they were correctly prepared. He often said that the Church of England was a bulwark against infidelity.

 

[jmcrae]

That answers the question. There is No real presence for THEM in what they do

I’m not surprised.

I’m not surprised.

They aren’t symbol though, just as the waters of Baptism are not symbolic. They effect the change that they signify.

So there is a real presence that they believe in, but the elements themselves don’t become God, in their view.

 

[steve_b]

Dear Steveb

You’ve been a member of this forum since 2004. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. I think you must realize that we’re trying to discuss spiritual matters with words. Not an easy task.

If you’re going to hang onto every word any of us say, this thread could go on till Jesus comes back!

But, to answer some of your questions:

Re who is good. You must realize there are so many ideas in this story of the rich man that it’s difficult to get into all of them. But direct your attention to Mathew 19:25 -26, after having read the whole story (not parable). What do you suppose is impossible with man but possible with God?? It is impossible for man to please God and he cannot be saved by his own efforts. The rich man said he followed all the commandments (quite a feat anyway!) so Jesus pushed him further. The rich young man just couldn’t give up his riches. Jesus asked him to do something very difficult for him. We ALL have things we find very difficult to do. This is why we cannot be “good”. Only with God can this be possible. It is possible for God to save us if we have faith in Him. Yes, the rich man failed the test, WE ALL FAIL THE TEST.

Steveb. Don’t be silly re faith alone. There we go again with words. Must I remember to say everything and can I not count on your intelligence?? I’m more than sure you’ve read James. Faith without works is dead. Faith leads to good works. Seems self-understood.

Can’t answer re post no. 52. It’s not mine and I don’t have enough time to go back and read everything.

Re our doctrines. Must we get into Papal infallability and all that? We have plenty of doctrines. Some don’t even seem biblical. Uh oh. Here we go with Tradition. Are we 100% sure they are all correct? We’re to accept them by faith. Okay. BUT what if one IS wrong? Whoa. Do we all end up in hell? No. Because it’s not our doctrines that will save us but Jesus. Here’s one doctrine just in case you want an example. Mary’s assumption to heaven. Don’t send me to Lumen Gentium please.

The Box. God is a FREE spirit (no pum intended). I mean, God can do what he wants to do. He can make up whatever rules he wishes. God is beyond our understanding and our grasp. So many things are mysteries. A mystery is something we could understand a little, but not completely. Do you have some mistaken notion of being able to understand God?? I’m sure you’ve read all of the above in your bible. The idea does come through.
Job 36:26, Job 37:5 and too many to list here incl the N.T. Every church portrays God in their own way. All the different doctrines. He, the creator of the universe, must think this is funny. Don’t get bent out of shape… So, yeah. I don’t think He likes being in that Box.

Let’s continue from verse 58 of John 6: Jesus let them go who couldn’t accept His teachings. Okay. So? Jesus doesn’t force you to follow Him. Of course he let them go. They decided to ABANDON him and move on. They COULD HAVE STAYED with Him and tried to understand what he said or just accepted it. But they CHOSE to LEAVE Him. Seems clear enough.

So, Steveb, I thank you for the mental stimulation and will not be continuing with this silliness. This thread is not silly, but how you hang on to every minute word.

I bid you a good night from the other side of the pond.

God bless you
Pease and Love

Now THAT’s one major over reaction to a very simple response to what you wrote. #61

 

[steve_b]

They aren’t symbol though, just as the waters of Baptism are not symbolic. They effect the change that they signify.

So there is a real presence that they believe in, but the elements themselves don’t become God, in their view.

So real presence isn’t really real presence

 

[jmcrae]

So real presence isn’t really real presence

Not in the same way as understood by Catholics, but rather, in the same way that both Catholics and Presbyterians understand the real presence of God in Baptism. It’s not a symbol. Its a real Sacrament.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

So real presence isn’t really real presence

One can never hope to be an effective apologist for Catholicism if he is unable (or unwilling) to grasp the first principles and therefore the difficulties felt by his opponent in understanding the Catholic position.

If you reduce everything to a triumphal “no, you’re wrong.” you will likely repel your listeners, even if you speak the Truth.

Many Protestants do indeed believe in the real presence. It is a good thing not a bad one. It is something we can build on.

 

[steve_b]

One can never hope to be an effective apologist for Catholicism if he is unable (or unwilling) to grasp the first principles and therefore the difficulties felt by his opponent in understanding the Catholic position.

If you reduce everything to a triumphal “no, you’re wrong.” you will likely repel your listeners, even if you speak the Truth.

Many Protestants do indeed believe in the real presence. It is a good thing not a bad one. It is something we can build on.

The following quote from Newman is a pretty strong statement. I personally like strong statements.

But was Newman not an effective apologist, or was he being insensitive, repelling to his listeners, or triumphalistic, when he wrote the following?

"…And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. {8} Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicæa and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: “So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that ‘when they rose in the morning’ her true seed ‘were all dead corpses’…”

From His essay on “Development of Doctrine”
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html

 

[steve_b]

One can never hope to be an effective apologist for Catholicism if he is unable (or unwilling) to grasp the first principles and therefore the difficulties felt by his opponent in understanding the Catholic position.

If you reduce everything to a triumphal “no, you’re wrong.” you will likely repel your listeners, even if you speak the Truth.

Many Protestants do indeed believe in the real presence. It is a good thing not a bad one. It is something we can build on.

Just thinking out loud

Was Newman being insensitive when he wrote

"…And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. {8} Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicæa and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: “So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that ‘when they rose in the morning’ her true seed ‘were all dead corpses’…”

From His essay on “Development of Doctrine”
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Now you’re just repeating yourself and going off topic.

 

[jmcrae]

The following quote from Newman is a pretty strong statement. I personally like strong statements.

But was Newman not an effective apologist, or was he being insensitive, repelling to his listeners, or triumphalistic, when he wrote the following?

"…And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. {8} Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicæa and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: “So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that ‘when they rose in the morning’ her true seed ‘were all dead corpses’…”

From His essay on “Development of Doctrine”
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html

Nor do I find where it says it’s necessary to completely misrepresent or else misunderstand Protestant beliefs in order for Catholicism to be the correct religion.

In fact, when you do that, it makes Protestants think you have no idea what you’re talking about, which is not a very effective way to convince someone of anything.

 

[steve_b]

Nor do I find where it says it’s necessary to completely misrepresent or else misunderstand Protestant beliefs in order for Catholicism to be the correct religion.

In fact, when you do that, it makes Protestants think you have no idea what you’re talking about, which is not a very effective way to convince someone of anything.

What you’re really saying, Newman didn’t know his own religion when he wrote about it, so he misrepresentd it?

Obviously I only took a small snapshot of what he wrote in his essay. The entire essay is provided in the link I gave. So there is ample ability to see full context of what he wrote