Why Protestants "don't" believe in The Holy Eucharist...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consubstantiation means that The Bread and Wine are litrally The Body and Blood of Christ. The idea that they are merely symbolic is a Sacrementarianist error.

The gospel writers called it bread because it is bread.

Jesus called it his body because it is his body.

That is the simple way of putting consubstantiation.

Those who say it is symbolic, Luther called Sacramentarianists.

Sacramentarianists are in error because the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.

Aren’t I a good Anglican? 😃
 
East_Anglican said:
Consubstantiation means that The Bread and Wine are litrally The Body and Blood of Christ. The idea that they are merely symbolic is a Sacrementarianist error.

The gospel writers called it bread because it is bread.

Jesus called it his body because it is his body.

That is the simple way of putting consubstantiation.

Those who say it is symbolic, Luther called Sacramentarianists.

Sacramentarianists are in error because the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.

Aren’t I a good Anglican? 😃
Click to expand...
👍

Exactly…He said it literally and not just once, but over and over and over again. And when some said that this teaching was too hard, He reinstated it’s literalness.

There is no play on words here. How can it be stated symbolically when he stated it over and over again and even got graphic going from bread to His flesh?

Don’t get me wrong, non-Believers in The Holy Eucharist (which means Thanksgiving Meal/aka Passover) can believe whatever they want to believe, but they cannot disintegrate Jesus’ exact words when He says that the bread and wine become His body and blood.

It takes “faith”.

When in doubt, just trust Jesus!

youtube.com/watch?v=pwpkkS1k7YE&NR=1
 
I learned a good way to understand real presence. The bread looks like bread, but what it is made up of is changed, not the appearance. Same with the wine, it looks the same as it did before it was consecrated, but now it has different substance.
No other protestants believe in this, that is why they are protestants correct?
 
Harpazo said:
Code: 
* The Lord's Supper is a holy meal of bread and wine that **symbolizes** the body and blood of Christ.
* The Lord's Supper recalls the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and celebrates the unity of all the members of God's family.
* By sharing this meal, we give thanks for Christ's sacrifice and are nourished and empowered to go into the world in mission and ministry.
* We practice "open Communion," welcoming all who love Christ, repent of their sin, and seek to live in peace with one another.
Emphasis mine. That’s enough proof on the subject for me.
Click to expand...
I served ex officio as a member of the UMC’s religious order on the Holy Communion Study Committee that presented the theological statement to the General Church - which was adopted in 2004. So while you may think you have enough proof, I would beg to differ with you.

The Eucharist is a symbol. It is also the Real Presence of Christ. It’s a both/and, not an either or. Symbols point to the reality that they represent - in the case of the Eucharist, they point to Christ and they ARE Christ. Sacraments are mysteries - and thus not confined to logic (and I would argue, not confined to Aristotelian and Thomistic thought). Again, I point you toward This Holy Mystery, the official statement of our beliefs on the Eucharist (emphasis mine):
United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ’s presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord’s Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, though we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God’s saving gift for the whole world.
Click to expand...
That’s the official statement of the United Methodist Church, Andrew, not mine. You don’t have to agree to it, but please don’t make assumptions based of just your experience that are not the official statements of my Church.

For example: I would not say that the Catholic Church embraces birth control just because most of the Catholics I know practice it. Please do me and my church the same courtesy.

O+
 
2ndGen said:
John 6
48
I am that bread of life.

49
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Click to expand...
“In my blood” . You have wrong translation.

So, He said:" This is a new covenant , in my blood."Not in the bread and wine.

If I believed bread and wine save me, God wouldn’t let me into Heaven. True for all who believe.
 
cradlecathlic26 said:
I learned a good way to understand real presence. The bread looks like bread, but what it is made up of is changed, not the appearance. Same with the wine, it looks the same as it did before it was consecrated, but now it has different substance.
No other protestants believe in this, that is why they are protestants correct?
Click to expand...
Really ?

And Hindu mantra is the only way to Krishna’s heaven Goloka Vrndavan.

If my salvation was in that bread, God wouldn’t let me into Heaven. Just like He doesn’t let those who believe animal sacrifices can atone for sins.

And, is there a difference between sacrificing bread, flowers, animals,singing, food and sacrificing Jesus ?

Yes. Sacrifice of Jesus is a ticket to Heaven. Other things are not.
 
“If I believed…”
Click to expand...
53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
64
But there are some of you that believe not.
 
cradlecathlic26 said:
I learned a good way to understand real presence. The bread looks like bread, but what it is made up of is changed, not the appearance. Same with the wine, it looks the same as it did before it was consecrated, but now it has different substance.
No other protestants believe in this, that is why they are protestants correct?
Click to expand...
There is no question that we (Lutherans) trust that we receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion. While what we sense with our human senses is bread and wine, we have the promise of Jesus that “this is my body” and “this is the new covenant in my blood.” If Jesus says so, how could it be otherwise?

How Jesus’ body and blood come to be in what appears to be bread and wine we accept as a holy mystery. It does not make sense according to human reason but we have faith that our Lord does not deceive us. We have not felt the need to use the concepts of Aristotelian metaphysics to help us believe what Christ has promised.
 
cradlecathlic26 said:
I learned a good way to understand real presence. The bread looks like bread, but what it is made up of is changed, not the appearance. Same with the wine, it looks the same as it did before it was consecrated, but now it has different substance.
No other protestants believe in this, that is why they are protestants correct?
Click to expand...
That’s a good way of looking at it.

I simply yield my mind and faith and belief to Jesus’ words.

If Jesus says that unleavened bread is His flesh,
who am I to limit it to my capacity of understanding?

If He said a door knob was His flesh, guess what?

It’s His flesh!

😃

The fact is, that The Holy Bible speaks about those who don’t believe Jesus when He calls the bread and wine His body and blood.

John 6:60-61

Many therefore of his disciples, when the heard this, said,
“This is a hard saying; who can hear it?”
But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them,

“Does this cause you to stumble ?”
 
2ndGen said:
That’s a good way of looking at it.

I simply yield my mind and faith and belief to Jesus’ words.

If Jesus says that unleavened bread is His flesh,
who am I to limit it to my capacity of understanding?

If He said a door knob was His flesh, guess what?

It’s His flesh!

😃

The fact is, that The Holy Bible speaks about those who don’t believe Jesus when He calls the bread and wine His body and blood.

John 6:60-61

Many therefore of his disciples, when the heard this, said,
“This is a hard saying; who can hear it?”
But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them,

“Does this cause you to stumble ?”
Click to expand...
If you are truly his disciple, why do you break his command of non-violence ?

I can tell you are yelling in the forum,so why don’t you use smaller font ?

Also - the Baldvin thing - has a sword logo. Nothing to do with Jesus. God hates violence from the depth of His soul.

Thassit. You shall be talking to yourself from now on.
 
pauliztarza said:
“In my blood” . You have wrong translation.

So, He said:" This is a new covenant , in my blood."Not in the bread and wine.

If I believed bread and wine save me, God wouldn’t let me into Heaven. True for all who believe.
Click to expand...
By the way, could you specifically point out the verse that you got “In my blood” from?

That way I could compare it and check for myself.

To quote a scripture and to now state what chapter and verse it is makes it difficult for one to either prove or correct themselves.

Thank you.

👍
 
🙂 hi 2ndGen the verse that was quoted to by p… St Luke 22;20. only thing he forgot to mention it was a cup of drink.some body didn’t make the connection and you know who.yes i learned that lesson the hard myself about stating ch verse.thanks for the reminder.
 
fbl9 said:
🙂 hi 2ndGen the verse that was quoted to by p… St Luke 22;20. only thing he forgot to mention it was a cup of drink.some body didn’t make the connection and you know who.yes i learned that lesson the hard myself about stating ch verse.thanks for the reminder.
Click to expand...
Thanks FB!

But how could they “not” believe it to be Jesus blood when He called it “the fruit of the vine” and as we all know, “He” is The Vine? Therefore, that wine in the cup is “His” fruit, thus, it is His blood.

John 15:5
“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing.”

Luke 22:
14. And when the time came, Jesus came to dine and the twelve apostles with him.
15. And he told them.

"This desire I have desired,
…that this Lamb* I partake with you,
…before I sorrow.
16. “For I am telling you,
…as of now we shall not eat it,
…until it is consecrated in the Kingdom of God.”
  1. And he consecrated the cup in commemoration and said,
"Take this and divide it between yourselves.
18. “For I am telling you,
…I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine,
…until the Kingdom of God has come.”
  1. And he consecrated the bread and pledged it and broke it and gave it to them and declared.
"This is my body that I give on your behalf.
This is what you shall be doing* in your Offerings* to me.
  1. And likewise also the cup, after they ate, he declared.
"This is the cup of the new covenant in my blood

In another Gospel, what does He say about having His blood in them? Exactly what He says in John 15!

John 6:
56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.

It’s all over The Scriptures.

How could anyone deny The Word of God?
 
gcnuss said:
I realize that, from a Catholic perspective, the Lutheran theology of the Eucharist is erroneous. However, it is what I and most Lutherans believe. We most assuredly believe that we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord whenever we receive Holy Communion. I have yet to be convinced that we are in error.
Click to expand...
Although Lutheranism has ‘priests’, they reject the notion of priesthood sacrifice, and they reject the holy sacrifice of the Mass where the priest is needed to consecrate the bread and wine. So, I guess you can believe whatever you want. 🙂
 
cradlecathlic26 said:
I learned a good way to understand real presence. The bread looks like bread, but what it is made up of is changed, not the appearance. Same with the wine, it looks the same as it did before it was consecrated, but now it has different substance.
No other protestants believe in this, that is why they are protestants correct?
Click to expand...
The differance between Transsub and Consub are that Consub does not involve a change in the physical elements. But both rightly proclaim that it is the body and blood of Christ. If somebody has to belive it is merely symbolic to be a Protestant, then Lutherans are not Protestants for a start, because the strongly believe it is his body and his blood. Consub upholds the doctrine of the real precence.

(What I just said may come as a bit of a shock to some people, but it is true.)
 
peary said:
Although Lutheranism has ‘priests’, they reject the notion of priesthood sacrifice, and they reject the holy sacrifice of the Mass where the priest is needed to consecrate the bread and wine. So, I guess you can believe whatever you want. 🙂
Click to expand...
To Lutherans it is sacremental rather than sacrificial. Still is his body and blood though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top