Why wouldn't a Protestant want to receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter AtheistNoMore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKMotley said:
I have seen folks posting on the decline in the quality/adequacy of catechisis, for whatever reason, (say, post VII) as responsible for problems in the current state of belief in the Church. Assuming there is such. I’m guessing that you would not agree.
Click to expand...
Agree with what?
The state of belief in the Church?

Well, all the folks I hang out with believe everything the Church Teaches. But, there are some that I’ve known who kept their, hm, true beliefs, secret. They came to light later in divorce proceedings. Sad.

Or the decline of the quality of catechesis?

As I said, there are too many variables. All I know is that when I fell away from the Church, thousands of people my age did not. We all, presumably, went through the same catechetical system.

When it comes to catechesis, I believe that if we’re looking for someone to blame, we should first look at ourselves.

Or something else?
 
I normally grin when I see the general explination of poor catechisis. I am more on the side that catechisis mostly happens at a young and very dependant age. When the “questions” start (and this is true for any denomination, even Catholicism) it is when this person is somewhat older, not so dependant and very very important, experiencing the REAL world. It’s not so much poor catechisis as that targets brains in their infancy. It’s the ability to think and luckaly today (not so much in the past) that humans can actually have the freedom to question.
 
Last edited:
I make no case for the state of contemporary catechisis, how it might differ from what it was or what part it might play in whatever might be the acceptance of or divergence from magisterial teaching in the RCC at this time. I have no idea. But I see “bad catechisis” mentioned often, here and there.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
. But I see “bad catechisis” mentioned often, here and there.
Click to expand...
I would say even more often than here or there but the post was more in general (and I hope many would read) and actually not to you specific.
 
As a Protestant we do not come to the same conclusion as Catholicism does when reading John 6. Catholicism believes Christ was being literal whereas we believe he was being figurative. Christ clarified what he meant for the disciples by saying “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”

Christ, when at the last supper passed out bread and said it was his body. He passed around the cup and said it was his blood. Again, Christ is being figurative. I don’t think I’ve ever heard the explanation of the last supper from the Catholic view so if someone can explain how that isn’t literal yet John 6 is, please explain the reasoning or mindset behind it.

Christ spoke both literal and figurative. He said he was the door. It’s not literally physically a door but spiritually and figuratively he is. He said he was the light of the world. Once again, he’s speaking spiritually and figuratively. He said he was the true vine. He doesn’t stop and explain to the disciples every time he’s being figurative but he did when speaking of his flesh.

This is why as Protestants we would see no value in the Eucharist other than being symbolic. That however isn’t what Catholicism believes.
 
Last edited:
Mishakel said:
This is why as Protestants we would see no value in the Eucharist other than being symbolic.
Click to expand...
So is it fair to say that no number of Eucharistic miracles (such as Lanciano, Bolsena, Siena, Santarem among others) would ever convince Protestants but they will always dismiss them on principle?
 
We will never know to what extent, but I bet more protestants would LIKE to partake. I have have had several protestants who were good Christians who had a keen interest in Catholicism. Many though, don’t want to put in the time, effort, and commitment into becoming Catholic. I don’t think that it is that they are lazy, more that they are conflicted.
 
Last edited:
To a Protestant, this is kind of like asking “Why wouldn’t you want X-ray vision and the ability to turn base metals into gold?” His answer to both would be, “That sounds cool. However, I am sincerely persuaded that that’s not something that actually corresponds with reality. Wanting or not wanting doesn’t enter into it.”

Now, your Protestant might be wrongly persuaded about this (I think he is, myself). But your question assumes that his objections are simply a matter of wonky motives, rather than good-faith disagreement about the nature of the Eucharist. That assumption is very convenient for us, of course … but I don’t believe it’s a fair one.
 
Obviously I wasn’t there and if something positive happened I wouldn’t say anything negative about it. However, we’re all aware of the TV healers of yesterday. I’m not saying anything fake happened in the instances you’re referencing but just because someone claims something miraculous happened doesn’t mean I’m blindly going to believe it either.

To answer your question miracles happening during a Eucharist would not make me change my beliefs or how I view scripture.
 
AtheistNoMore said:
It is not a matter of anyone being better off than anyone else. (with real presence participation)
Click to expand...
Why not? If indeed the eucharist, being a literal body and blood, is " the most intimate and physical experience we have with the Lord."? It seems like such claimed superlative abiding in Christ, being with Christ, would have effectual consequences on the participant , versus supposed lesser forms of ecuharist.
 
Last edited:
mdgspencer said:
Then it is just a piece of bread to him.
Click to expand...
as Martyr stated i think, “not like any ordinary bread”.

Straw man…like saying what is the big deal with saluting ones flag, it is just cotton and dye.
 
Last edited:
I grew up in a conservative sola scriptura, anti-Catholic denomination. So our denomination wanted to avoid anything that seemed “Catholic.” The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper took place two or three times a year. A special table (not an altar) was wheeled out. The pastor read the Last Supper gospel narrative. Round trays of small squares of white bread and little plastic cups holding less than an ounce of grape juice were passed down the aisles.

We never talked about the “actual presence” because nobody knew what it was.
 
Last edited:
I grew in exactly the same way. I actually remember as a child being mildly weirded out when everyone popped the cracker into their mouths and started chewing all at the same time.
 
In this matter, I can only speak from experience. In my parents’ ELCA church, I’ve heard people call the Eucharist cannibalistic.

My parents believe that it’s only symbolic as they believe Jesus wouldn’t want people to actually eat and drink Him. Come to find out; my parents’ church believes and teaches it’s only symbolic. Even though their church is the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.

How can they call themselves Lutheran when Luther himself believed and taught Real Presence? In fact: At the Colloquy of Marburg, Luther and Zwingli really got into it over the Eucharist so bad that Luther carved: “ This is My Body “ in the table in anger.

As for myself: After some years after I fell away from Christianity, I had found a Bible in the McDonald’s I managed. I was curious; so I read it.

One day, while listening to Metallica’s “ To Live Is To Die “; I read the Last Supper scene in the Gospel of John. As the song’s lyrics came on:

“ When a man lies, he murders some part of the world. These are the pale deaths, which men miscall their lives. This I cannot bear to witness any longer. Cannot the kingdom of salvation, take me home? “

Every time I hear that song and those lyrics; I think of the Last Supper.

That and I could see in the Last Supper passage, Jesus was really sad and didn’t want to leave the disciples behind.

I read the words of the Institution Jesus said: “ This is My Body… This is My Blood… “ and it all made sense to me. Jesus was talking about His literal Body and Blood.

From then on, I’ve always believed in Jesus’ Presence: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

For the life of me; I just can never understand how some traditions can see it differently.

No offense meant; You believe what you believe and I’m not attacking you for it. Just saying my piece is all.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top