Receiving the Eucharist as a protestant leaning towards catholicism

[justme1272]

Hello everybody!
So I am protestant but leaning in some ways towards Catholicism. I believe that Jesus meant it literally when he said "this is my body, this is my blood". However, that raises the question if the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ in every Christian church or just in the ones that (claim to) have the apostolic succession, which enables Jesus to truly be present in the Eucharist. That being said, I haven't accepted many Catholic doctrines and would have to do extensive research (on the Church Fathers and Church history, as well as the claim that the Catholic Church hasn't changed it's doctrine and it has merely developed without contradictions) in order to be fully convinced that it really is the One True Church of Jesus Christ. Having said that, do you think I should continue receiving Communion at my present church, whilst partly not believing it's the way Christ intended it to be? We almost always have members of the congregation help serve Communion together with the pastor. At the same time, not receiving it (which I have been doing on and off for a while now) feels like I am disobeying Jesus, who told us to do it.
One more thing: all those doctrines I currently have a problem with (about Mary, praying to saints, papal infallibility - all the typical ones) I feel I could submit to, should God convince me through my research that the Catholic Church is indeed THE Church of Christ...except the doctrine of an eternal hell. I have spent months crying and feeling miserable thinking I have to believe the most horrendous possibility there is - conscious eternal suffering of human beings - is reality. I also have religious OCD which obviously loves to make me fixated on hell. After listening to Edward Fudge's lecture (

) where he makes his case for annihilationism (I realize controversial topics such as this should be discussed in the controversial topics forum and I'm not wanting to start an argument on why it is or isn't true) I decided the only way to stay sane is to accept his explanation and put the whole thing to rest. Don't get me wrong, his argumentation was convincing to me as well. If I were to become Catholic I would have to start believing ECT again.
I feel torn between wanting to receive the Christ in the Eucharist (if I were to convert) and wanting to go on believing in annihilationism (I do realize my belief in it doesn't make it true or false), since if the Catholic Church is wrong on such a weighty doctrine, it loses all credibility and claim on infallibility. Would appreciate any advice!

 

[concretecamper]

I would suggest you post this in OBOB. That way you can get some sound Catholic advice and you will not have to weed through the inevitable anti Catholic members who post here and who will try to save you from considering the harlot of Babylon as a home.

As for me, I would never consider presenting myself for Communion at a place where I wasn't fully in step with ALL teachings.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, as I see it the power from above that acts on us during the eucharist could not be blocked by any actions of failures of men, not any, ever.

In other words, His power isn't subject to men, nor blocked by men, nor men's mistakes. If a priest did the blessing wrong, it would not stop God from accomplishing His purposes.

So, the pastor or priest is actually only helping us (at best, and helpfully) to get into the right frame of mind to remember Christ and the mystery that this really is his body and his blood given for us, and there isn't an intermediary that can ever increase or decrease that, as men cannot contravene nor increase God's power. A priest's virtue or wrongs, or better or worse prayers, none can alter our relationship with God, nor can they block His power on us. The action on us is from Him.

It's also helpful to know on the very separate topic of the fate of those who reject Christ, that while we know that the devil and his angels have immortality already, and thus could suffer eternal conscious torment, we do not have clear wording to say our own souls already have the immortality (in scripture at least to my knowledge) except if it is specifically given to us, but instead we have wording that our souls if not given eternal Life through Christ would instead "perish", and suffer the "second death". Why should we think those words don't mean what they appear to say?

As Christ said, we should not fear men, who at most can only destroy these bodies we are in. No. As Christ told us, we should only fear the One Who can destroy both body and soul. Many take 'destroy', 'perish' and 'second death' to mean just that. Still, this seems an equally terrible outcome to be avoided, though far easier to understand as just.

 

[justme1272]

Well, as I see it the power from above that acts on us during the eucharist could not be blocked by any actions of failures of men, not any, ever.

In other words, His power isn't subject to men, nor blocked by men, nor men's mistakes. If a priest did the blessing wrong, it would not stop God from accomplishing His purposes.

So, the pastor or priest is actually only helping us (at best, and helpfully) to get into the right frame of mind to remember Christ and the mystery that this really is his body and his blood given for us, and there isn't an intermediary that can ever increase or decrease that, as men cannot contravene nor increase God's power. A priest's virtue or wrongs, or better or worse prayers, none can alter our relationship with God, nor can they block His power on us. The action on us is from Him.

It's also helpful to know on the very separate topic of the fate of those who reject Christ, that while we know that the devil and his angels have immortality already, and thus could suffer eternal conscious torment, we do not have clear wording to say our own souls already have the immortality (in scripture at least to my knowledge) except if it is specifically given to us, but instead we have wording that our souls if not given eternal Life through Christ would instead "perish", and suffer the "second death". Why should we think those words don't mean what they appear to say?

As Christ said, we should not fear men, who at most can only destroy these bodies we are in. No. As Christ told us, we should only fear the One Who can destroy both body and soul. Many take 'destroy', 'perish' and 'second death' to mean just that. Still, this seems an equally terrible outcome to be avoided, though far easier to understand as just.

Thanks for replying! Will continue to look into the topic of Communion. Concerning destruction after our bodily death, I agree it is indeed horrible but much easier to stomach than the alternative..

 

[justme1272]

I would suggest you post this in OBOB. That way you can get some sound Catholic advice and you will not have to weed through the inevitable anti Catholic members who post here and who will try to save you from considering the harlot of Babylon as a home.

As for me, I would never consider presenting myself for Communion at a place where I wasn't fully in step with ALL teachings.

will post in in OBOB, thanks!

 

[tz620q]

Hello everybody!
So I am protestant but leaning in some ways towards Catholicism. I believe that Jesus meant it literally when he said "this is my body, this is my blood". However, that raises the question if the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ in every Christian church or just in the ones that (claim to) have the apostolic succession, which enables Jesus to truly be present in the Eucharist. That being said, I haven't accepted many Catholic doctrines and would have to do extensive research (on the Church Fathers and Church history, as well as the claim that the Catholic Church hasn't changed it's doctrine and it has merely developed without contradictions) in order to be fully convinced that it really is the One True Church of Jesus Christ. Having said that, do you think I should continue receiving Communion at my present church, whilst partly not believing it's the way Christ intended it to be? We almost always have members of the congregation help serve Communion together with the pastor. At the same time, not receiving it (which I have been doing on and off for a while now) feels like I am disobeying Jesus, who told us to do it.
One more thing: all those doctrines I currently have a problem with (about Mary, praying to saints, papal infallibility - all the typical ones) I feel I could submit to, should God convince me through my research that the Catholic Church is indeed THE Church of Christ...except the doctrine of an eternal hell. I have spent months crying and feeling miserable thinking I have to believe the most horrendous possibility there is - conscious eternal suffering of human beings - is reality. I also have religious OCD which obviously loves to make me fixated on hell. After listening to Edward Fudge's lecture (

) where he makes his case for annihilationism (I realize controversial topics such as this should be discussed in the controversial topics forum and I'm not wanting to start an argument on why it is or isn't true) I decided the only way to stay sane is to accept his explanation and put the whole thing to rest. Don't get me wrong, his argumentation was convincing to me as well. If I were to become Catholic I would have to start believing ECT again.
I feel torn between wanting to receive the Christ in the Eucharist (if I were to convert) and wanting to go on believing in annihilationism (I do realize my belief in it doesn't make it true or false), since if the Catholic Church is wrong on such a weighty doctrine, it loses all credibility and claim on infallibility. Would appreciate any advice!

Recently one of the Mass readings was from Philippians chapter 4
8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
9 Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

This made me realize that as Christians we are called upon to use our God-given reason to seek God and to try to fathom his mysteries. I pray that you will continue your quest. The Catholic Church has a lot of history and theology behind it, too much to digest in a short period of time. Keep asking questions and seeking the truth, for the ultimate truth is Jesus Christ.

As far as the Eucharist, Halbhh is right in that the power of God is the true source of the miracle of making present Christ in the Eucharist. There was a time (303 A.D.) in the early Christian Church where they were being persecuted by the Roman Emperor Diocletian, who outlawed the Christian religion. Some Christians handed over their scriptures to the Romans as a repudiation of their faith. Later under Constantine, when Christianity was lawful again, these same people professed their faith again and some of them became priests. The Donatists in northern Africa set up a policy that the sacraments presided over by these "traditors" were not valid. So people baptized by these priests were not Christians because the baptism was invalid. Pope Miltiades condemned the Donatist position, stating that it was God who was the source of the miracle and even sinful men could perform the sacrament. Now all this being said, that more liberal position of Pope Miltiades presumed that the priests had been ordained, which in Catholicism means that the man has (again through the power of God) undergone an ontological change in his person that allows him to stand "in persona Christi", in the person of Christ. This is a recognition that Christ is the true minister of the Eucharist, as he was at the Last Supper and that the priest is standing in for Christ when he performs the consecration.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Communion is not something to be engaged in lightly. The RCC does not allow open communion (communion by non-Catholics) so taking communion in an RCC church while not in compliance with however they define worthy would be disrespectful to that church. Now, as to whether or not to take communion in your current church, let me ask two questions:

1. What are their requirements for receiving communion at their church, and are you compliant?

2. Do you believe it is more important to follow the word of God or the teachings of men when the two are in conflict? (This relates to your statement about submitting to beliefs you do not share).

Ultimately, if you are considering a conversion to RC, you should seek out a local parish and schedule a sit down with the priest for some discussion. Share your questions and concerns. He should be able to help you along.

 

[Tigger45]

You and I are in pretty much agreement. Now if you're looking for churches that teach the 'real presence' of Christ in the Eucharist and have apostolic succession don't forget Eastern Orthodox christians and Anglicans who is also evangelical. I myself am Lutheran which teaches the 'real presence' and is also evangelical, although some Lutheran sects have apostolic succession and some don't. The one thing I do know from personal experience is that Christ is in the Eastern Orthodox Eucharistic elements. Hope that helps

Hello everybody!
So I am protestant but leaning in some ways towards Catholicism. I believe that Jesus meant it literally when he said "this is my body, this is my blood". However, that raises the question if the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ in every Christian church or just in the ones that (claim to) have the apostolic succession, which enables Jesus to truly be present in the Eucharist. That being said, I haven't accepted many Catholic doctrines and would have to do extensive research (on the Church Fathers and Church history, as well as the claim that the Catholic Church hasn't changed it's doctrine and it has merely developed without contradictions) in order to be fully convinced that it really is the One True Church of Jesus Christ. Having said that, do you think I should continue receiving Communion at my present church, whilst partly not believing it's the way Christ intended it to be? We almost always have members of the congregation help serve Communion together with the pastor. At the same time, not receiving it (which I have been doing on and off for a while now) feels like I am disobeying Jesus, who told us to do it.
One more thing: all those doctrines I currently have a problem with (about Mary, praying to saints, papal infallibility - all the typical ones) I feel I could submit to, should God convince me through my research that the Catholic Church is indeed THE Church of Christ...except the doctrine of an eternal hell. I have spent months crying and feeling miserable thinking I have to believe the most horrendous possibility there is - conscious eternal suffering of human beings - is reality. I also have religious OCD which obviously loves to make me fixated on hell. After listening to Edward Fudge's lecture (

) where he makes his case for annihilationism (I realize controversial topics such as this should be discussed in the controversial topics forum and I'm not wanting to start an argument on why it is or isn't true) I decided the only way to stay sane is to accept his explanation and put the whole thing to rest. Don't get me wrong, his argumentation was convincing to me as well. If I were to become Catholic I would have to start believing ECT again.
I feel torn between wanting to receive the Christ in the Eucharist (if I were to convert) and wanting to go on believing in annihilationism (I do realize my belief in it doesn't make it true or false), since if the Catholic Church is wrong on such a weighty doctrine, it loses all credibility and claim on infallibility. Would appreciate any advice!

 

[Open Heart]

This brings back to me the days when I was making my own transition from Protestantism to Catholicism.

I had definitely come to believe in Real Presence, but was still attending a North American Baptist Church. It was Communion Sunday. By the time the Pastor finished explaining all the things that communion is NOT, I was so angry that I couldn't receive communion! It was the last day I attended there.

But I too still had problems with the Marian doctrines and the Papacy. I was not yet Catholic. In my mind I saw this picture. I had left this city behind. In the far distance I could see another ancient city. But I was on this dusty road, in no man's land, in no city at all.

For about a year, I had no place to take communion, but I trusted that the Lord would eventually work this out for me. And he did.

Basically, I came to believe that the Catholic Church was the Church born on Pentecost, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believed that the Church had teaching authority, which is why its Christology and Trinitarianism should not be questioned. But if I accepted all that, it meant I had to accept the Marian dogmas and Papacy. It was a package deal. And so Mary and the authority of the Pope went down my throat like nails, but I accepted it. It was a matter of trust.

I believe in the legitimacy of your spiritual journey, wherever it takes you. Stay on the path -- there be monsters if you leave the path. May God be with you.

 

[justme1272]

Communion is not something to be engaged in lightly. The RCC does not allow open communion (communion by non-Catholics) so taking communion in an RCC church while not in compliance with however they define worthy would be disrespectful to that church. Now, as to whether or not to take communion in your current church, let me ask two questions:

1. What are their requirements for receiving communion at their church, and are you compliant?

2. Do you believe it is more important to follow the word of God or the teachings of men when the two are in conflict? (This relates to your statement about submitting to beliefs you do not share).

Ultimately, if you are considering a conversion to RC, you should seek out a local parish and schedule a sit down with the priest for some discussion. Share your questions and concerns. He should be able to help you along.

1.As far as I know the only requirement at my current church for receiving communion is belief in the basic Gospel truths and that Jesus instituted communion which is why we celebrate it. The pastors are Lutheran so they believe in the Real Presence.
2. Of course the word of God..could you maybe explain what exactly you meant by teachings of men in this context? What my current church teaches about communion?

 

[Albion]

Having said that, do you think I should continue receiving Communion at my present church, whilst partly not believing it's the way Christ intended it to be? We almost always have members of the congregation help serve Communion together with the pastor. At the same time, not receiving it (which I have been doing on and off for a while now) feels like I am disobeying Jesus, who told us to do it.

My personal opinion is that you should continue to receive. At the very least it is a commemoration of the Last Supper and the Lord's Passion and Death--which every denomination accepts. Besides, there probably is no denomination in which every member, if questioned by a pollster, would give the same answer if asked "What does it mean?" and that's regardless of what the denomination's official definition happens to be!

One more thing: all those doctrines I currently have a problem with (about Mary, praying to saints, papal infallibility - all the typical ones) I feel I could submit to, should God convince me through my research that the Catholic Church is indeed THE Church of Christ...except the doctrine of an eternal hell.

Annihilationism is quite out of the mainstream of Christian thought, either Protestant or Catholic, and not easy to square with the Bible. I would say that you are moved--understandably enough--by your heart when it comes to this issue, BUT you know that you have to side, in the final analysis, with what your mind tells you is God's truth, like it or not.
So why not consider the idea that there is a hell which is estrangement from God, and let the details go undefined? I don't think that would put you at odds with the RCC.

 

[justme1272]

As far as the Eucharist, Halbhh is right in that the power of God is the true source of the miracle of making present Christ in the Eucharist. Pope Miltiades condemned the Donatist position, stating that it was God who was the source of the miracle and even sinful men could perform the sacrament. Now all this being said, that more liberal position of Pope Miltiades presumed that the priests had been ordained, which in Catholicism means that the man has (again through the power of God) undergone an ontological change in his person that allows him to stand "in persona Christi", in the person of Christ. This is a recognition that Christ is the true minister of the Eucharist, as he was at the Last Supper and that the priest is standing in for Christ when he performs the consecration.[/QUOTE]

My saying that it´s apostolic succession enables Jesus to truly be present in the Eucharist was bad wording for sure..but from what I can understand you believe God performs the miracle of transubstantiation only in churches with the apostolic succesion, so even if some other denominations believe in it, it doesn´t actually happen? Or is it even sth we can know..

 

[justme1272]

As far as the Eucharist, Halbhh is right in that the power of God is the true source of the miracle of making present Christ in the Eucharist. Pope Miltiades condemned the Donatist position, stating that it was God who was the source of the miracle and even sinful men could perform the sacrament. Now all this being said, that more liberal position of Pope Miltiades presumed that the priests had been ordained, which in Catholicism means that the man has (again through the power of God) undergone an ontological change in his person that allows him to stand "in persona Christi", in the person of Christ. This is a recognition that Christ is the true minister of the Eucharist, as he was at the Last Supper and that the priest is standing in for Christ when he performs the consecration.

My saying that it´s apostolic succession that enables Jesus to truly be present in the Eucharist was bad wording for sure..but from what I can understand you believe God performs the miracle of transubstantiation only in churches with the apostolic succesion, so even if some other denominations believe in it, it doesn´t actually happen? Or is it even sth we can know..

 

[justme1272]

Basically, I came to believe that the Catholic Church was the Church born on Pentecost, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believed that the Church had teaching authority, which is why its Christology and Trinitarianism should not be questioned. But if I accepted all that, it meant I had to accept the Marian dogmas and Papacy. It was a package deal. And so Mary and the authority of the Pope went down my throat like nails, but I accepted it. It was a matter of trust.

Love this metaphor with the two cities haha! Is there anything specific you heard or read that "pushed you over the edge" regarding RCC being the Church born on Pentecost? Or was it just God helping you to have faith that RCC is the one true Church?

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know what church you currently attend in Germany, but traditionally Lutherans also believe Christ is bodily present in the Lord's Supper/Eucharist. I would not consider this doctrine a significant divide between Catholics and Lutherans, even Luther himself did not think so. Where we differ is questions of authority, for Lutherans the authority to pronounce the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ is due to Jesus own words of institution.

 

[justme1272]

I don't know what church you currently attend in Germany, but traditionally Lutherans also believe Christ is bodily present in the Lord's Supper/Eucharist. I would not consider this doctrine a significant divide between Catholics and Lutherans, even Luther himself did not think so.

As far as I know the pastors are pretty traditionally Lutheran in their beliefs although one of them described the Eucharist to me once as Christ being in, above, under, around etc the bread meaning God is everywhere but not in the bread in a distinct way, which I would not consider believing in the bodily presence.

Where we differ is questions of authority, for Lutherans the authority to pronounce the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ is due to Jesus own words of institution.

The question of authority and whether or not it affects the Eucharist is exactly what I´m trying to figure out and I guess the only way to do that is to dig deep into the Church Fathers and Church history..and pray God would somehow enlighten me as I do that

 

[Albion]

As far as I know the pastors are pretty traditionally Lutheran in their beliefs although one of them described the Eucharist to me once as Christ being in, above, under, around etc the bread meaning God is everywhere but not in the bread in a distinct way, which I would not consider believing in the bodily presence.

Interestingly enough, that wording you cited means the exact opposite of what you thought it did.

 

[tz620q]

My saying that it´s apostolic succession enables Jesus to truly be present in the Eucharist was bad wording for sure..but from what I can understand you believe God performs the miracle of transubstantiation only in churches with the apostolic succesion, so even if some other denominations believe in it, it doesn´t actually happen? Or is it even sth we can know..

This journey you are on is like walking across a river using stepping stones. You seem to be firmly on the first stepping stone, which is reading Scripture and the Apostolic Fathers (the very early Church Fathers) and realizing that Christ meant it literally when he said that he would be present body and blood in the Eucharist. The second stone is the one that you are searching for now. That stone is the firm foundation of how Christ can make himself present even today. I think we agree that it is through the power of Christ that this is possible.

Now the question of when this occurs and when it does not becomes pertinent. To a Catholic, we say that this is not some magical incantation of some words that compel Christ to be present. An example used is that if two children are playing at being priests and recite the words, there is no real presence. Why? Because these children do not have the charism from God to do this. So that would say that there has to be some people who God has granted this gift to and some that he has not.

Looking at this in a larger way than just the Eucharist, we see Paul telling Timothy how to choose new Bishops in 1 Timothy 3:4
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?

So if Paul expected the Bishops to take care of God's church, did he not also grant them the authority needed to do this. And when was this authority granted? Well we see an example of this from Paul in 1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

So it seems that Paul and the other Apostles and disciples selected elders, who then selected other elders and that was how the early church grew, not as a leaderless mob; but with leaders. The next step is to look at the Apostolic Fathers and see what they thought the "job" of bishop entailed. From Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans -
CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (St. Ignatius)

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

So Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote in 107 A.D. this letter which clearly states that the Bishop or one entrusted by him is to administer the Eucharist and that others do not have the ability to consecrate a valid Eucharist. To return to Apostolic Succession, this does guarantee that the person actually has the ability to perform the consecration, but it is broader than that and is really more about a passing on of teachings from Apostles to disciples to elders to further disciples, etc. Once the person is selected, there is a permanent change in them that gives them this ability. This change is done by God and irrevocable by man. So that is what Pope Miltiades was saying against the Donatists. He was pointing out that even if these men who had consecrated the Eucharist before fell into apostasy, God would remain faithful to them and when they returned, their ability to perform sacraments would still be valid. I know this is a change in thinking from the "priesthood of all believers" concept of not having an ordained priesthood. To me, I had to look at the history of the Reformation and realize that most of the motivation to get rid of the priesthood stemmed from anti-clericalism among the masses and greed among the nobles, who wanted the lands and wealth of the church. The theology against a priesthood flowed from this motivation. So if you look at the early reformers, they did not reject the necessity of an ordained priesthood and to this day, their churches have one. It was only a small minority of Christians at that time and at this time that reject this necessity.

 

[Albion]

So it seems that Paul and the other Apostles and disciples selected elders, who then selected other elders and that was how the early church grew, not as a leaderless mob; but with leaders. The next step is to look at the Apostolic Fathers and see what they thought the "job" of bishop entailed.

That might persuade our OP writer who says he's leaning towards Catholicism, but in general you are at this point simply using Catholic theology to prove Catholic theology.

 

[tz620q]

You were doing pretty well up to that point. After this, you are simply using Catholic theology to try to convince a Christian who believes that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority rather than the opinions of church leaders from a later period.

I really don't know what her opinion is on the authority of Scripture and how that ties into Apostolic Succession. It seems that she is trying to look at history and see a continuity of beliefs. So Ignatius is one of the earliest surviving testimonies to what the next generation after the Apostles believed. Perhaps you can give her an Anglican take on this history and how these early Christians got it wrong.