The Real Presence-the Eucharist

[Paul Yohannan]

OK. Thoughts.

1. Believing Christ to be present...and "worshipping (the host)" are two different things (that were run together in your post, unfortunately).

2. You don't get to generalize about what "Protestants" say or believe about the Lord's Supper except that Protestants don't accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation and do not accept that Christ is sacrificed anew on the altar at every Mass.

If you want to take on the Lutheran POV, do that. If you want to take on the Anglican POV, do that. If it's the Church of the Brethren.... and so on.

What about Anglo Catholics? I really dont see how you can deny their Protestantism, given what they were historically protesting.

For that matter, consider the Czech Utraquists: undeniably Protestant, they believed in transubstantiation but broke communion with Rome because the laity, who had been Orthodox, were furious about being denied the chalice.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Even if the Catholics were right, there would be no scripture to back up the claim that Protestants that those who don't participate are rejecting God. That would be just another Catholic tradition imposed on such an action.

Not true; you have 1 Corinthians 10:17, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, John 6, 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, all four of the Institution Marratives, which include a positive commandment, and then by virtue of not adhering to that commandment, Galatians 1:8; there is also Matthew 16:18 which declares the infallibility of the Universal (Catholic) Church.

There can be no doubt from the writings of St. Ignatius, who was fed to lions while St. John the Apostle was probably still alive, and St. Justin Martyr, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Hippolytus, et cetera, that the ancient church believed in the Real Presence and not in a Zwinglian or Melancthonian rejection of it. The most one might be abe to claim, but with difficulty, is that this presence was spiritual, in the manner of Calvinism, but the presence was still there.

So ultimately it comes down to a question of who is included in the Catholic Church, the Church referred to in Matthew 16:18. Some members of my church would say "just the Orthodox," but for my part, I believe in ecumenical reconciliation; I see Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Anglo Catholics and Assyrians with the same Eucharistic doctrine, and others with very similiar Eucharistic doctrines; growing up in a mainline Protestant church, from the words used in our communion service I myself assumed the Son of God was physically present in the Eucharist and was surprised to discover some members of my church disagreed.

So I for one would like to seek out Catholicity and Orthodoxy.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

My opinion is that wine in the bible refers to The Holy Spirit and bread stands for the body of Christ. Christ is the Word of God incarnate. He was born in Bethlehem, "house of bread".
So, when we believers read God's word with the indwelling of The Holy Spirit, eating His flesh and drinking His blood is fulfilled.

This is an interesting idea, but I think you are missing half of the equation. Consider: the spirit is sealed into the faithful through baptism and chrismation (confirmation), and the Gospel historically in the ancient church was only read to the baptized and those preparing for baptism, and it was read, then as now, at the climax of the Liturgy of the Word, before the consecration of the Eucharist.

So what you describe is actually typologically correct: you have accurately described the reading of the Gospel, which is an icon of the Word of God (but Jesus is not an incarnate Bible or an icon of the Bible; the reverse is true; the Word "Word" has a different concept related to the Greek philosophical concept of the divine Logos and the Hebrew theological concept of the Memra or the Word spoken by the Father, by which the Father acted, see John 1:1-17).

This is the first part, and an integral part, of every divine liturgy, of every Eucharist.

But, the second part is the actual partaking, wherein we drink the blood of the new covenant and eat the flesh of our Lord given to us for the remission of sins and life everlasting, and if we fail to discern the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharistic meal, the results can be deadly. (1 Corinthians 11:27-34).

1 Corinthians 10-12, and also the conclusion of the Gospel of Luke, where you have the disciples encounter the Lord in the breaking of bread, and later St. Paul characterizing the Ekklesia as united in the breaking of bread, which is the body of Christ, and thus becoming partakers of the divine nature, together with the fact that the Gospel in written form did not exist for the first few decades of the Church, rule out the purely intellectual communion you describe.

There is also the experience of partaking of the Eucharist. I was miraculously delivered from a case of food poisoning, and many other members can attest to the blessings they have received through this sacrament. We are also blessed by reading Scripture in the Spirit; the two are inseparable, which is why the Epistles and then the Gospel are read immediately before the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church (and in most other churches, including Protestant churches, that celebrate Holy Communion).

 

[thecolorsblend]

That is not the issue

In fact it is very much the issue.

Would you or would you not ask a fellow Christian to pray for you? After all, the practice is recommended in Sacred Scripture.

 

[rturner76]

• There is really no need for Protestants to be jealous. They can have the Real Presence too. just join the Catholic church! Don't like the Pope? Join the Orthodox church. But people spending their precious time putting down the Eucharist or the Catholic Church? The gates of hell can't stand up against her forget about a lone Prodestant. HA HA HA HA

 

[amadeois]

This thing about the Eucharist, the Holy Communion and the Real Precede is NONSENSE.

Invented by men and perpetuated through the councils.

What Yeshua mentioned with the bread and the wine was totally different.

It is a spiritual bread and wine.

Yeshua Hamashiach is about that spiritual world.

What the Real Precede is presenting is about materialism that decays and does not last.

Yeshua's body is not corruptible. His entire message is SPIRITUAL and will last forever.

 

[amadeois]

My cell changed Precense to Precede.

 

[Grafted In]

My cell changed Precense to Precede.

Every bit as fitting for this carnival ride.
On a positive note they are keeping the gates of hell ocupied.

 

[Grafted In]

So, if I understand you correctly, (and I'm sure I don't) the indwelling of The Holy Spirit.....Christ in us... is purely intellectual?

Forgot to quote. I was responding to Paul Yohannan.

 

[Standing Up]

You do know that an apostasy committed by force is no apostasy at all? Secondly, the "slaves of Christian catechumens are not Christians themselves, necessarily. Thirdly, it says that the slaves told the tormentors that they heard from their masters that it was actually the flesh and blood of Christ. The tormentors used that information to compell Sanctus and Blandina to confess. At the time, this was not common knowledge to be spread to anyone. But had they denied it, not confessed it, they would have been spared. Read for comprehension.

Do you comprehend her answer, let alone the bolded sentence?

" Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: “How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?” "

Had the martyrs agreed it was flesh, as you believe, they would not have been martyred. Get it?

 

[Standing Up]

Root of Jesse - The evidence is pretty strong that the Roman part of the Christian world believed in the Real Presence in the very Early Church. However, the Didache is believed to have been composed in Syria. It is possible that the Early Church in Syria and maybe in other areas in the East, did not have the same solid belief in the Real Presence that seems to have been present in Rome and maybe elsewhere in the West, since the Didache is not at all clear regarding the subject. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am just saying that it is possible that the doctrine of the Real Presence gradually became a universally held view, but that it might not have been a universally held doctrine in all parts of the Christian World in the 1st century. Actually, if my hypothetical thesis is correct, the doctrine might have become a universal one eventually because of the honor given to the Church of Rome? Though, even with said honor, that still does not necessarily mean that the RCC view of the Bishop of Rome is right and that the EOC view is wrong.

According to the quote re martyrs of Lyons from Irenaeus, it most likely became universal because those who held the other view were martyred. IOW, if you agreed you were eating flesh, they let you live.

 

[amadeois]

And the "CARNIVAL RIDE" continues in spectacular form.

What's the problem with humans?

 

[JoeP222w]

Would you or would you not ask a fellow Christian to pray for you? After all, the practice is recommended in Sacred Scripture.

There is no example, precedence or command from God to ask dead people to pray for you in Scripture.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Really? I assure my understanding here is taken from Catholic teaching and I challenge you to show where it is not, and i will change it if it is, or expose your own ignorance. Put up or shut up. Your immature recourse to ad hominem betrays your desperation.

Lol. You keep posting untruths and your own 'ideas' about Catholic teaching! Nothing more buddy!

Like a lot of people who dislike Catholic truths you interpret scripture suit your very 'own' beliefs. You take some parts of scripture as literal while dismissing others as not literal because they do not fit in with your views etc. Double standards i would say buddy.

God bless you anyway.

And lots of people resort to unsubstantiated assertions and ad hominem in lieu of an argument, as you have, and thus the challenge again, put up or shut up! "Reiterating your baseless bare charge and "Nothing more buddy" simply will not do it.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

And thus it is arrogant and supremely presumptuous to presume prayer to created beings in Heaven is of God, and a practice of at least the NT church, when the Holy Spirit only provides approx 200 prayers in Scripture to God in Heaven, and none to anyone else except by pagans, and instructs believers to pray God in Heaven, and never to anyone else.

I agree with this statement.

First, only pagans are refereed to in the Bible as praying to anything other than GOD
Second, The prayers to the DEAD is a pagan teaching as noted
Deuteronomy 18 King James Version (KJV)
9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.(A necromancer is a person who practices necromancy, a discipline of black magic used to communicate with the dead)
12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Third, the first lie ever told to Eve
Genesis 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: IE you are immortal
1 Timothy 6:15-16 King James Version (KJV)
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Conclusion, So the scriptures are clear that the RCC practice of necromancer (prayer's to the dead) is based on the original lie told by satan that you are immortal and do not die.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

to Root of Jesse and thecolorsblend

Are the following statements attributed to Catholic Sources true concerning the ceremony of the euchrist by the priest?

Let us first examine Roman Catholic belief. Once again, we are quoting from Roman Catholic sources. The first source to be quoted is from St. Thomas, reprinted in the Catholic book, "Faith of Millions", John O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., 268-269, "nihil obstat" by Rev. T. E. Dillon-Censor Librorum and "imprimatur" by John Francis Noll, D.D. -Bishop of Fort Wayne.

" Power of Consecrating: The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. 'No act is greater,' says St. Thomas, 'than the consecration of the body of Christ.' In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. WHEN THE PRIEST PRONOUNCES THE TREMENDOUS WORDS OF CONSECRATION, HE REACHES UP INTO HEAVENS, BRINGS CHRIST DOWN FROM HIS THRONE, AND PLACES HIM UPON OUR ALTAR TO BE OFFERED UP AGAIN AS THE VICTIM FOR THE SINS OF MAN."

"It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. For, while the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, THE PRIEST BRINGS CHRIST DOWN FROM HEAVEN, AND RENDERS HIM PRESENT ON OUR ALTAR AS THE ETERNAL VICTIM FOR THE SINS OF MAN - NOT ONCE BUT A THOUSAND TIMES! THE PRIEST SPEAKS AND LO! CHRIST THE ETERNAL AND OMNIPOTENT GOD, BOWS HIS HEAD IN HUMBLE OBEDIENCE TO THE PRIEST'S COMMAND."

"Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vicegerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ; he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially found of applying to the priest is that of 'alter Christus.' FOR THE PRIEST IS AND SHOULD BE ANOTHER CHRIST" (Faith of Millions, John O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., 268-269)("nihil obstat" by Rev. T. E. Dillon-Censor Librorum and "imprimatur" by John Francis Noll, D.D. -Bishop of Fort Wayne). Emphasis added.

 

[thecolorsblend]

There is no example, precedence or command from God to ask dead people to pray for you in Scripture.

Golly, that's strange. Our Lord said that God is the God of the living; not the dead.

At the very most, I suppose a Protestant could try arguing against the efficacy of the communion of saints. Although I am skeptical even of that. But arguing that asking the faithful departed for their prayers is forbidden is a tough sell.

But even arguing against the efficacy of asking for their prayers is hard. I have personally experienced the benefits of it. I am a convert so it was quite surprising to this former Protestant to receive graces from a practice he (which is to say I) once rejected.

 

[Goatee]

#antletems

This city reigns over the kings of the Earth.

The Roman Empire did not reign all over the earth.

Read Revelation 4 for an alert.

Were the Roman soldiers dressed with gold, precious stones and pearls? No.

The Cardenals and Bishops do.

One hour and then doomsday.

IS YOUR DECISION

I ALREADY PAID ATTENTION TO THE ALERT AND GOT OUT.

May God bless you.

You are interpreting Revelations to suit your beliefs. You have a very narrow view of Catholicism and are swayed by what Catholic haters say about Revelations in regard to the Catholic church! Its all rubbish buddy.

 

[Goatee]

This is a most interesting thread and I commend the OP for raising the issue. As a life-long Protestant, I have always felt that the Catholics and Orthodox had solid footing for their position, as such seemed to be taught and believed in the Early Church. This may still be true. However, I do not feel as certain as I once did regarding such. One main reason is that what is believed to be the oldest Christian document outside the New Testament, the Didache, does not deny the Real Presence, but neither does it profess such. Hence, this gives me pause to wonder about the doctrine. If it was considered to be a core doctrine of the faith around 80-100 A.D., one would think that the Didache would have mentioned it in no uncertain terms. The Didache certainly tells us that only those baptized in the name of the Lord should partake, but such still fails to tells us if they believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the bread and wine.

There is no doubt that the Real Presence was taught and believed in the 2nd century, at least to some extent, but the evidence for such in the 1st century is still questionable, at best. It is possible that the doctrine developed over time and that it was either not professed by the Apostles or that they were uncertain about it. Maybe some believed it and some did not? It is very hard to say.

Then we get back to what does the Real Presence mean? Some Protestants certainly believe that Jesus is present in a spiritual sense in the elements, but these do not believe that the bread and wine or juice actually become his body and blood. Some Lutherans and some Anglicans would seem to pretty much hold to the Catholic-Orthodox view, but by no means all. Finally, pretty much all Evangelicals and Fundamentalist Protestants do not view Holy Communion as a sacrament and thus do not even look upon Christ as being present in a spiritual sense in the elements, let alone in a physical sense.

Does it matter what one believes about the doctrine of the Real Presence? Well, one would think that it might matter. Then again, where is the evidence? Do those who hold to the doctrine live better lives than those who do not? Are they more loving and forgiving? Are they more faithful to their spouses? Do they give more to help the poor? Unless I can become convinced that a belief in the Real Presence really makes a difference for the bulk of those who subscribe to the doctrine, then I must come to the conclusion that it probably does not really matter whether a Christian accepts the doctrine or not.

The Holy Spirit continues to work in the Church. It has done from day 1. As the Holy Spirit works so does the knowledge of the church increase.

At the time of the Didache, of which i have read, nobody can say for definite that the church at the time did not believe in the real presence. Jesus did say that the Holy Spirit would never leave His church and i am sure it continues to teach us new things all of the time.

 

[Goatee]

This thing about the Eucharist, the Holy Communion and the Real Precede is NONSENSE.

Invented by men and perpetuated through the councils.

What Yeshua mentioned with the bread and the wine was totally different.

It is a spiritual bread and wine.

Yeshua Hamashiach is about that spiritual world.

What the Real Precede is presenting is about materialism that decays and does not last.

Yeshua's body is not corruptible. His entire message is SPIRITUAL and will last forever.

Strong words!! May God forgive you buddy!