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

[mcq72]

Seems almost tautological

Yes, almost. I only partly agree, for indeed God taught Adam what to eat and not eat in the Garden , and Adam taught both Cain and Abel and yet one could say or ask was the teacher at fault? Did they teach?

Yet for sure the Teacher did pursue stronger, better methods, dispensations thru the ages…but He has always taught, without excuse.

Lol…flip side: “my people perish for lack of knowledge.”

 

[mcq72]

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.

Just as I was weirded out, in a good way, when a priest handed out all the hosts first, then we all ate together, at once.
…he even let us take the cup.

 

[ArchStanton]

1. regarding the bold… the flesh profits nothing is not the same as ‘my flesh profits nothing’
2. look back at Jn 6:66 [disciples left Christ due to unbelief]

blessings!

 

[Mishakel]

Couple of thoughts:

When Christ was talking about the flesh profits nothing it’s immediately after he said “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him”. I’m not sure what flesh you think he’s talking about other than his own, or any for that matter.

The disciples who left didn’t believe from the beginning. Scripture doesn’t state they stopped believing because of what Christ just explained. It says Christ knew they didn’t believe in him from the beginning.

It also fits with Matthew 16:

16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man

God doesn’t care what foods we eat or if our hands are clean. He cares where our hearts and minds and faith are. Christ is doing away with traditions and teaching straight to the heart of what God wants. How could he go into great detail saying it matters not what you eat but then say you can’t reach heaven unless you physically eat my flesh and drink my blood. It doesn’t synchronize unless he’s talking about eating and drinking his doctrine.

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

He’s clearly defining his flesh and blood as the doctrine itself he is teaching which many times went against the traditions the Jews had grown accustomed to.

 

[ArchStanton]

Jesus said to them, “ Amen, amen , I say to you, **unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you DO NOT HAVE LIFE within you. [ vs 54 ] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life , and I will raise him on the last day. [ vs 55 ] For MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD , and my blood is true drink. [ vs 56 ] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him .

Christ is pretty clear.

Blessings!

 

[Dorothy]

How have you determined that we don’t want to? My understanding is that we can’t partake in your Eucharist if we really don’t believe the wafer has become Jesus. Shouldn’t we rather be respected for admitting we don’t have that belief? I read that only a small percentage of Catholics really believe yet they partake…which they can do because they have been baptized Catholic. Are they better off than a Protestant who admits he has not come to that belief?

Good point!

 

[Dorothy]

As for myself, I believe I receive the Risen and glorified Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, whether I receive a drop of the Precious Blood, or a crumb of His Body.

 

[Johan]

What I really want to know is, why wouldn’t a Protestant (or any Christian who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence) want to receive the physical body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist? The Eucharist is the most intimate and physical experience we have with the Lord. Why wouldn’t all Christians want this?

My simple answer is that

1. being a heterosexual male, it is not my custom to have an “intimate and physical experience” with other men, and
2. it is not my custom to get an “intimate and physical experience” with other people by eating their bodies and drinking their blood.

From a theological point of view, it is not the blood of Christ per se that atoned for our sins, but the fact that it was shed on the cross to the point that He died. We were not saved by a blood transfusion or anything like that.

 

[Peebo]

St.Paul said that anyone who eats and drinks the body and blood of Christ in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning the body and blood of Christ…so no… Catholics are not better off than Protestants…in fact Catholics who treat the Eucharist in an unworthy manner are worse off than Protestants who only regard it only as symbolic…as a former Pentecostal I’m well aware how easy it was to “convert” Catholics who were clueless on scripture and didn’t even understand their own faith…others just saw it as part of their culture…there was no commitment to Christ in partaking of the Eucharist…but…for those Catholics who do believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist…there is nothing more precious on this earth than to receive him body…blood…soul and divinity…so there is a great chasm between those who believe it is only symbolic and those who believe in the real presence…one cannot be reconciled to the other

 

[Peebo]

Johan

25m

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) AtheistNoMore:

What I really want to know is, why wouldn’t a Protestant (or any Christian who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence) want to receive the physical body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist? The Eucharist is the most intimate and physical experience we have with the Lord. Why wouldn’t all Christians want this?

My simple answer is that

1. being a heterosexual male, it is not my custom to have an “intimate and physical experience” with other men, and
2. it is not my custom to get an “intimate and physical experience” with other people by eating their bodies and drinking their blood.

From a theological point of view, it is not the blood of Christ per se that atoned for our sins, but the fact that it was shed on the cross to the point that He died. We were not saved by a blood transfusion or anything like that.

Wow…in all my life I’ve never heard anyone…be they Protestant…Muslim…Jewish…Hindu…Buddhist…or even atheist…offer such a vile …disgusting comparison…

 

[Wannano]

AtheistNoMore:

What I really want to know is, why wouldn’t a Protestant (or any Christian who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence) want to receive the physical body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist? The Eucharist is the most intimate and physical experience we have with the Lord. Why wouldn’t all Christians want this?

My simple answer is that

1. being a heterosexual male, it is not my custom to have an “intimate and physical experience” with other men, and
2. it is not my custom to get an “intimate and physical experience” with other people by eating their bodies and drinking their blood.

From a theological point of view, it is not the blood of Christ per se that atoned for our sins, but the fact that it was shed on the cross to the point that He died. We were not saved by a blood transfusion or anything like that.

I agree with you completely. In relationship to this thread and what I presented earlier is centered around the idea of “wanting”. I want what God wants us to have. IF Jesus was truly meaning, that what has become the Catholic practice of Transubstantiation and that the Eucharist is the most ultimate experience of knowing Him, then I “want” it. However, I am not at all convinced at this point that I am missing out on the ultimate personal relationship with Jesus by having Him in my heart.

 

[Peebo]

Wannano

8m

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Johan:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) AtheistNoMore:

What I really want to know is, why wouldn’t a Protestant (or any Christian who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence) want to receive the physical body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist? The Eucharist is the most intimate and physical experience we have with the Lord. Why wouldn’t all Christians want this?

My simple answer is that

1. being a heterosexual male, it is not my custom to have an “intimate and physical experience” with other men, and
2. it is not my custom to get an “intimate and physical experience” with other people by eating their bodies and drinking their blood.

From a theological point of view, it is not the blood of Christ per se that atoned for our sins, but the fact that it was shed on the cross to the point that He died. We were not saved by a blood transfusion or anything like that.

I agree with you completely. In relationship to this thread and what I presented earlier is centered around the idea of “wanting”. I want what God wants us to have. IF Jesus was truly meaning, that what has become the Catholic practice of Transubstantiation and that the Eucharist is the most ultimate experience of knowing Him, then I “want” it. However, I am not at all convinced at this point that I am missing out on the ultimate personal relationship with Jesus by having Him in my heart

So you also agree with comparing the Eucharist to homosexuality also…I can see why you’ll never “want it”

 

[steve-b]

Hi everyone,

This question has been nagging me for a while about some Protestants’ attitudes toward the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As many of us know, many Protestants believe the Eucharist is a mere symbol of Jesus, and not his actual body. Of course, us Catholics understand the Eucharist to be the actual body and blood of Jesus.

why wouldn’t a Protestant (or any Christian who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence) want to receive the physical body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist?

Knowing what the Eucharist is, reverse this, why would a Catholic stop going to mass, or even leave the Church ergo leave Jesus in the Eucharist, for some Protestant sect?

Is it just ignorance? Maybe,

and maybe not.​

Especially when

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Meaning, this excuse we see that people often use, hope, or think, applies to them, in reality, does NOT apply to THEM because of their own irresponsibility.

So​

Wouldn’t the same be true for the Protestant? They claim to rely on scripture as their sole source of truth… correct?

While still a Protestant, John Henry Newman, while coming to a conclusion of his studies on the subject, made the following statement famous.

"to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant"

In extension to that truth, Newman saw all the other truths he had to have that he didn’t have as a Protestant. So he became Catholic

So​

Given, we know how important faith is, I appeal to Peter for the answer to the questions you ask, only I direct it going both ways. Protestants who won’t become Catholic and therefore members of Our Lord’s Church He established, and Catholics who give up on living their Catholic Faith.

2 Pet 1:
5 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love . 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Peter is making all this, ONE BIG CONDITIONAL STATEMENT. It is all conditioned on those points he makes, being obeyed continuously without stopping…or one WILL fall.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano

8m

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Johan:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) AtheistNoMore:

What I really want to know is, why wouldn’t a Protestant (or any Christian who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence) want to receive the physical body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist? The Eucharist is the most intimate and physical experience we have with the Lord. Why wouldn’t all Christians want this?

Peebo, I think you are way over reacting and missing the point. In no way am I agreeing to comparing the Eucharist to homosexuality.

• I never understood Johan to be doing that either but I am sure he is capable of clarifying that.

 

[Peebo]

My simple answer is that

1. being a heterosexual male, it is not my custom to have an “intimate and physical experience” with other men, and
2. it is not my custom to get an “intimate and physical experience” with other people by eating their bodies and drinking their blood.

You don’t think him pointing out he’s a heterosexual male whose custom is not having an intimate and physical experience with other men…and then goes on about not having intimate and physical experience with other people by eating their bodies and drinking their blood is not a sick attempt at equating Christ in the Eucharist to homosexuality…ok…I guess as a Protestant you might not be offended…

 

[Wannano]

I think it is a logical reaction to the use of the phrase “ultimate intimate and physical experience.” I have heard Catholics here before using that expression to describe the Eucharist but at all of the Catholic Eucharists I have observed I do not remember a priest ever saying anything like " come up now and experience the most ultimate intimate physical experience you will ever have." I am sure if that was said there would be reactions of all kinds.

• I see I used the word ultimate instead of most.

 

[steve-b]

AtheistNoMore:

Hi everyone,

This question has been nagging me for a while about some Protestants’ attitudes toward the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As many of us know, many Protestants believe the Eucharist is a mere symbol of Jesus, and not his actual body. Of course, us Catholics understand the Eucharist to be the actual body and blood of Jesus.

What I really want to know is, why wouldn’t a Protestant (or any Christian who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence) want to receive the physical body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist? The Eucharist is the most intimate and physical experience we have with the Lord. Why wouldn’t all Christians want this?

How have you determined that we don’t want to? My understanding is that we can’t partake in your Eucharist if we really don’t believe the wafer has become Jesus. Shouldn’t we rather be respected for admitting we don’t have that belief? I read that only a small percentage of Catholics really believe yet they partake…which they can do because they have been baptized Catholic. Are they better off than a Protestant who admits he has not come to that belief?

Georgetown Univ , A Jesuit University, did a survey, and found 79% of Catholics don’t attend Mass faithfully on Sunday. They might be (C& E) Christmas and/or Easter Catholics, or they stopped going to mass altogether but still call themselves Catholic.

Meaning 21% of Catholics faithfully go to mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

SO​

Depending on which group one asks faith questions to, one would expect to get different answers to those faith questions… agreed?

 

[ArchStanton]

Johan,

I shouldn’t say ‘I think you already know’ but I think you already know that the accidents remain, therefore, it is not cannibalism. That is what the Romans thought 2000 years ago.

 

[Johan]

Johan,

I shouldn’t say ‘I think you already know’ but I think you already know that the accidents remain, therefore, it is not cannibalism. That is what the Romans thought 2000 years ago.

Yes, but you believe that the substance of the Eucharistic elements is Jesus’ body and blood, do you not? I mean, otherwise, the premise of the OP talking about having “an intimate and physical experience” of Christ would not make any sense.

 

[ArchStanton]

body, blood, soul, and divinity… not cannibalism Johan [you knew this though]