How do Protestants regard Jesus's words "This is my body. Do this in memory of me"?

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by JonNC

None, Nicea, none.

Jon

Exactly! I do not where people hear or get such distorted information? People prefer to go to second hand sources rather than going straight to the primary source. And why? Because it conflicts with their novelties.

[Maryann C]

Originally Posted by Boywonder23k

As a Lutheran we take it literally. Catholic apologists make it seem like all Protestants do not agree with baptismal regineration, infant baptism, the real presence, etc. As a Lutheran I believe in all three and also have a high view of Mary. Not all denominations are so different from the early church fathers you know. If one can call the bodily assumption of Mary and papal infallibility "the growth of doctrine" Lutherans can easily say the same thing about our beliefs.

As a convert who works with protestants of many denominations I can attest to the fact that some hold these words in high esteem, some may even say literally but some believe it is merely symbolic due to the "in remembrance of me " and what is lost in translation to English. One friend goes to a Pentecostal Church and they hold the meal in high esteem because they will not receive while being conscious of sin but they only celebrate the meal once a year! My thought is IF you really do believe it is literally Jesus in His flesh and blood then wouldn't you want to receive as often as possible??
To Boy wonder , my mother is German and raised Lutheran and she raised me naturally with Lutheran beliefs. She worked closely with Lutheran nuns. When , at the age of 10, I asked if I was baptized she said no and gave me the song and dance about sister having said I need to wait until I was older I know that was the Lutheran teaching. I know from my studies that you may SAY you believe in the literal presence BUT do you believe in con-substantiation ( Jesus becomes present WITH the bread and wine ) or trans-substantiation ( Jesus only is present even though we still - thanks be to His Mercy- see and taste the effects of the bread and wine they no longer are present). Do you believe He is really there in the flesh and blood or is He spiritually present?

[Usbek de Perse]

Although this is not my own belief, I wonder if some Protestants take his words as the disciples at the Last Supper might have. At that point, the bread and wine were apparently not his body and blood. You could see him in his body and the bread and wine as separate from it. So for them what did that mean? Did they take that huge leap of faith then and there to believe that the bread and wine were his actual body and blood? I wonder. After all, the the Hebrew people were not strangers to metaphor.

And yet, saying it is just a symbol is so unsatisfying. Perhaps it shouldn't be. After all, even if it is just a symbol, it is a symbol that our Lord has established.

Originally Posted by ManOnFire

I am wondering if some churches believe His words were merely symbolic for gathering at table. I understand that some Protestant pastors consecrate the eucharist, but do all Protestant denominations? I was told that some churches only have communion once per month or so, so I would like to know if those pastors consecrate the eucharist, and if so, then why only once per month?

[tqualey]

Hi, Maryann,

Thank you for your insights.

You have seen things from many different sides...and sharing this is very helpful to me.

God bless

Originally Posted by Maryann C

As a convert who works with protestants of many denominations I can attest to the fact that some hold these words in high esteem, some may even say literally but some believe it is merely symbolic due to the "in remembrance of me " and what is lost in translation to English. One friend goes to a Pentecostal Church and they hold the meal in high esteem because they will not receive while being conscious of sin but they only celebrate the meal once a year! My thought is IF you really do believe it is literally Jesus in His flesh and blood then wouldn't you want to receive as often as possible??
To Boy wonder , my mother is German and raised Lutheran and she raised me naturally with Lutheran beliefs. She worked closely with Lutheran nuns. When , at the age of 10, I asked if I was baptized she said no and gave me the song and dance about sister having said I need to wait until I was older I know that was the Lutheran teaching. I know from my studies that you may SAY you believe in the literal presence BUT do you believe in con-substantiation ( Jesus becomes present WITH the bread and wine ) or trans-substantiation ( Jesus only is present even though we still - thanks be to His Mercy- see and taste the effects of the bread and wine they no longer are present). Do you believe He is really there in the flesh and blood or is He spiritually present?

[Maryann C]

Originally Posted by englishredrose

I go to an anglican church, church of england



I like your post because you have said does it matter? To many it does matter but the most important thing that matters is that we love God? (believe).
On this I have said alot about it but will say nothing fixed because I want to know is that do you believe in God or do you Love God.

It matters because Jesus prayed that we would be one as the Father and He are one- how can we be one if we can't agree to WHAT "this bread " and "this wine" IS. Jesus did not intend for there to be 34 thousand denominations and growing every day each believing a little differently and disagreeing with each other. How can we truly love God if we do not even wish to comply with his Son's prayer that we be one? Doesn't it say in the Bible somewhere that "you shall know them by their love"? or is that just a hymn?

Originally Posted by PumpkinSeed

Doesn't really matter because it relies on faith. If you send the wine and bread to a lab to have it tested, it will turn out to be wine and bread. It is not human flesh or human blood. To think that, you would need faith. It is a faith issue. I believe what Jesus said but without faith it is only symbolic.

I am afraid you are wrong here because there have been several "Eucharistic miracles" - Concecrated hosts either turning into what looks like real flesh or dripping with blood that are happening to this day , some are new and some have been 'fresh' for hundreds of years where as normal flesh would have decomposed. Many of these have been scientifically tested by independent labs and have been verifiably shown to be human flesh of the type found in the human heart with LIVE cells as opposed to dead cells. There was a very good recent article on this in CA here is the link:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/art...nciano-matters
here is a quote you might find interesting
"In 1970 and 1971, director of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy in Arezzo, Italy, Dr. Edward Linoli found that the consecrated species in Lanciano were real cardiac tissue of type AB blood"
There are many other sources you can find but as Pumpkin says so also the article goes on to say
"We must always remember that our faith in the Eucharist is first of all founded on the
proclamation of Jesus Christ".

As for 'context ' when Jesus is talking in John 6 about the fact that they have to eat ( the Greek actually is better translated " to gnaw on" as you would a bone) His flesh, one has to ask one's self IF he meant this is a 'symbol of my flesh' then WHY would many find this "hard teaching : and turn away from Him and no longer follow Him....only conclusion is that they KNEW he was really talking about what seemed to them to be cannibalism. THAT is the only explanation for their action to what he said.

[Maryann C]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Maryann,

Thank you for your insights.

You have seen things from many different sides...and sharing this is very helpful to me.

God bless

You are welcome Tom and I am humbled that as a cradle Catholic you say this to me.
I am a bit passionate about this subject because it was this realization of the 'context' of John 6 and Jesus' whole discourse there in that was a major conversion point for me .For me when you understand the bread from heaven in Exodus that Jesus is talking about and follow the context of how He is the true bread from Heaven etc and on ,one just realizes He is talking about what we experience at mass. Having been a member of the Church of England where the liturgy is almost identical to most American Catholic masses and having gone to a Catholic convent school and having gone to mass on Wednesdays with the school even though I was not Catholic so I could not receive, I immediately recognized that the Catholic Church was the only Church that had what Jesus was talking about in John 6 and what He instituted at the last supper. ...so I had to go where Jesus was in His fullness .

[Traverse]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

I am sorry,but believe you are taking His words way to lightly. He was teaching the RP because even the Jews made the remark that would need to EAT His Flesh in order to have eternal life. So yes ,in essence they were freaking out! Yes Jesus used methapor's all the time but He also explained and corrected people when they misunderstood. Guess what? He does NOT waiver His teaching on the RP or tell the people they are misunderstanding Him. Remember, we are talking about our salvation and I seriously doubt Jesus' wanted people to second guess Him on a particular teaching.

If Jesus truly taught a symbolic Eucharist,then why did he fail to tell His disciples He really did not mean for them to understand Him as being literal? Why let those disciples walk away,if it only was symbolic?

This is a good point and one I have thought about before. My initial feeling is because even though they did not understand they knew Christ had "the words of eternal life." In the end it seems they would understand when communion is first instituted. If someone told you some bread was their body while they were in the room with you you'd understand it as symbolic and not literal by the pure fact that you are looking at this man talking about something that is clearly bread. They would not have anything to be confused about then. But I digress, in all honesty part of this may very well be semantics because I'm aware that the catholic belief (unless I am mistaken) is that they are literally the body and blood while retaining the physical appearance. That is, it's a spiritual transformation. I believe that we partake on a spiritual basis as well so this may very well be a semantics issue.

Originally Posted by Nicea325

I beg your pardon? They are not significant? Then name the other sources outside the NT which are significant?

Well, none. None are. Writings of the christians fathers are interesting and shed some light on the history of that time, but they are not inspired and therefore fallible. They're written by men who are not blessed with the ability to write scripture at that time. Even in the new testament, a work completed before the first century came to close, words of division and strange doctrines were being spoken of. Just because something was written early, at about 200AD or so, does not mean it's accurate of Christianity when divisions were already existing before the year 100.

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Really? Name ONE ECF who didn't agree with the RP?

Actually, I'll retract this statement. I did read an article that spoke of this, mentioning a few different fathers of the early church, but upon further review I've seen no one else comment on this and, as far as I can tell, the author of the article references some writings of Clement that are not I Clement and have disputed authorship anyway.

I'm not trying to spread lies, I'm just commenting on what I see. Just trying to have a discussion here is all.

[JackHandy]

Scripture does not leave this vague. It absolutely is the body, blood and divinity of Jesus Christ. This can be seen from Comparing John 6 with Acts 1.

In John 6:

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?

62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?


Keeping in mind verse 62 look at Acts 1:

1 In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught

2 until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

3 He presented himself alive to them by many proofs after he had suffered, appearing to them during forty days 2 and speaking about the kingdom of God.

4 While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for "the promise of the Father 3 about which you have heard me speak;

5 for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit."

6 When they had gathered together they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going 4 to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

7 He answered them, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.

8 But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

9 When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight.

Jesus compared the eating of his flesh with the apostles seeing him ascending to heaven. Since we see him literally ascending in front of the apostles in Acts 1, he meant that his flesh must be eaten literally not figuratively.

[tqualey]

Hi, Traverse,

In my opinion, while you may have, '... thought about this before...' it needs to come off the 'back burner' as you give this even more thought. Your post seems to be based more on 'feeling'. For example:

Originally Posted by Traverse

This is a good point and one I have thought about before. My initial feeling is because even though they did not understand they knew Christ had "the words of eternal life." In the end it seems they would understand when communion is first instituted.

I am really not sure about what you mean by, '...in the end...they would understand...'. Recall that these Jews had eaten the bread and fish that Jesus had miracously given them the day before. They people had seen the Power of God - and sought out Jesus - to get another free meal! They even begin their greeting to Christ with an insult!! Their hearts were far from following Christ when He chalenged them.

Originally Posted by Traverse

If someone told you some bread was their body while they were in the room with you you'd understand it as symbolic and not literal by the pure fact that you are looking at this man talking about something that is clearly bread. They would not have anything to be confused about then.

I think what is important is that Eucharist Discourse in John 6 comes towards the end of Christ's Public Ministery - no one gets 5,000+ people to follow them in a desert just for the thrill of it. The people who followed Christ were basically aware that He was very Special, could cure illness, raise the dead and taught like no one else did - by His Own Authority. This isn't 'someone' - but Christ Who is talking to these people. While you may have dismissed the context with your analogy - it is quite real. The same Someone Who died that we may live eternally with Him - is the same Someone Who declared that unless we eat His Flesh we have no life.

Originally Posted by Traverse

But I digress, in all honesty part of this may very well be semantics because I'm aware that the catholic belief (unless I am mistaken) is that they are literally the body and blood while retaining the physical appearance. That is, it's a spiritual transformation. I believe that we partake on a spiritual basis as well so this may very well be a semantics issue.

I really could not disagree more. Christ says unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood we are dead - and you dismiss this as semantics? Seriously, even free-meal motivated Jews understood Christ to say that they had to EAT (as in grind and chew) His Flesh. The understood this was no analogy, they understood He was calling them to a higher level of understanding (remember, He told them that their fleshly thoughts profited them nothing) and they REJECTED CHRIST! This is the only time there was a rejection of Christ based on doctrine.

What I have always marveled at is that Protestants believe that God created all out of nothing. No argument - after all He Is God! He did not have to do this - He just said it and it was done. These same Protestants believe that Christ died to save us from Hell. No argument - after all He is God! And, again, He just said it and it was done! But, when it comes to giving us His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity under the appearance of Bread and Wine - ooooooooooo now that's another story! He can't DO that!! He did not SAY that!! And, the only way around this is to claim this is just semantics. Honest, such an argument simply makes no sense if one truly believes John 6 and the Words of Christ as recorded by the Synoptics at the Last Supper - and this is from a group that generally claims 'Sola Scruptura'!!

So, let's discuss this. And, when it comes to the Early Chruch Fathers - NONE OF THEM ever said the Eucharist was just symbolic, was a semantics game or somehow is a deception. They believe - as the Catholic Church believes today - that once the words of Consecration are said, then the reality of what we see as common bread and wine has totally changed.

God bless

[Reuben J]

Originally Posted by Usbek de Perse

Although this is not my own belief, I wonder if some Protestants take his words as the disciples at the Last Supper might have. At that point, the bread and wine were apparently not his body and blood. You could see him in his body and the bread and wine as separate from it. So for them what did that mean? Did they take that huge leap of faith then and there to believe that the bread and wine were his actual body and blood? I wonder. After all, the the Hebrew people were not strangers to metaphor.

And yet, saying it is just a symbol is so unsatisfying. Perhaps it shouldn't be. After all, even if it is just a symbol, it is a symbol that our Lord has established.

One of the good posts I've heard from those Christians who do not believe in transubstantiation.

I am sure the apostles did not take his words literally during the last supper just as the many times when they could not understand him too. Many of Jesus words and teachings came to proper perspective and the meaning understood only after the resurrection, Pentecost and the ascension.

[JaKael02]

Theological debate by various non-trained laity doesn't bear the fruit of unity in many cases.

Rather, lets spend our time with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel in Adoration.

Where truth is discovered.

Regards,

James

[Traverse]

Originally Posted by tqualey

In my opinion, while you may have, '... thought about this before...' it needs to come off the 'back burner' as you give this even more thought. Your post seems to be based more on 'feeling'.

My post is based on my own research and opinion, yes. I don't deny this. But I resent the "backburner" statement. If it was on the backburner I wouldn't even be talking about it.

Originally Posted by tqualey

I think what is important is that Eucharist Discourse in John 6 comes towards the end of Christ's Public Ministery - no one gets 5,000+ people to follow them in a desert just for the thrill of it. The people who followed Christ were basically aware that He was very Special, could cure illness, raise the dead and taught like no one else did - by His Own Authority. This isn't 'someone' - but Christ Who is talking to these people. While you may have dismissed the context with your analogy - it is quite real. The same Someone Who died that we may live eternally with Him - is the same Someone Who declared that unless we eat His Flesh we have no life.

To be fair, I wasn't trying to say Jesus is "some dude." The point I was making is that the apostles were presented with the first communion when Jesus was in the room with them. Jesus was pointing at actual bread and actual wine. There's no reason they would have taken it to mean there was a molecular change to the bread and wine when they do not see it change before their eyes.

Originally Posted by tqualey

Christ says unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood we are dead - and you dismiss this as semantics? Seriously, even free-meal motivated Jews understood Christ to say that they had to EAT (as in grind and chew) His Flesh.

I don't dismiss it on semantics. What I was trying to say is that the concept of transubstantiation doesn't actually sound that different from saying "this bread is spiritually His body and this wine is spiritually His blood." In catholic tradition transubstantiation has the bread and wine literally turn into His body and blood but retain the appearances of bread and wine. Now I can be mistaken, I am only commenting on what I believe I understand, but that sounds like a spiritual change and not a physical change to me. So believing something is spiritually his body and blood honestly sounds like we're believing the same thing, just using different language to get there. I don't deny that the bread and fruit of the vine are His body and blood, but I maintain that it is in a spiritual sense and that the bread and fruit of the vine are symbolic of the nurturing we get from His sacrifice so that we may live.

Originally Posted by tqualey

What I have always marveled at is that Protestants believe that God created all out of nothing. No argument - after all He Is God! He did not have to do this - He just said it and it was done. These same Protestants believe that Christ died to save us from Hell. No argument - after all He is God! And, again, He just said it and it was done! But, when it comes to giving us His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity under the appearance of Bread and Wine - ooooooooooo now that's another story! He can't DO that!! He did not SAY that!! And, the only way around this is to claim this is just semantics. Honest, such an argument simply makes no sense if one truly believes John 6 and the Words of Christ as recorded by the Synoptics at the Last Supper - and this is from a group that generally claims 'Sola Scruptura'!!

I do not argue that God could not accomplish what He says. I never said He couldn't. But that doesn't mean He did. There's a difference here. I was not denying the real presence by way of semantics, as I specified earlier, but I was suggesting that maybe it's a semantics argument that causes us to appear to disagree more than we actually do.

I will also add that John 6 is a powerful chapter, no arguments here, but it also includes verses that imply a spiritual understanding of the matter and not a literal one.

John 6:55
"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."

This statement comes after his disciples are complaining that He can't give them His flesh to eat. This, to me, is an explanation of the symbols for His remembrance while others claim Christ did not try to explain Himself at all and therefore it is entirely literal.

Also...

John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

You bring up this verse yourself. Yet it seems to regard something differently than what you suggest. This is Christ claiming that He's speaking on spiritual matters. It's like when He says "I am the door." We know Christ is not a literal door... and yet He most definitely is a spiritual door, a way to the Father.

Originally Posted by tqualey

So, let's discuss this. And, when it comes to the Early Chruch Fathers - NONE OF THEM ever said the Eucharist was just symbolic, was a semantics game or somehow is a deception. They believe - as the Catholic Church believes today - that once the words of Consecration are said, then the reality of what we see as common bread and wine has totally changed.[/color][/size][/font]

Well, I retracted my previous statement that they did... and my previous statement was only a "I've heard elsewhere such and such" and was by no means a concrete statement of persuasion but only to show you that there's so much hearsay going on out there that it shouldn't be a surprised anyone is confused on the matter.

[benjohnson]

Both authentic Protestant and Catholic teaching tell us that it is the "true body and true blood" or the "real presence."

There are plenty of Catholics and plenty of Protestants that don't believe this. For example only 50% of Catholics believe in the real presence.

http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com...real-presence/

Let us all work on our fellow christian to get them to this basic and fundemental truth, instead of arguing over small details.

In my opinion, of course.

[Nicea325]

Traverse:

Also...

John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

You bring up this verse yourself. Yet it seems to regard something differently than what you suggest. This is Christ claiming that He's speaking on spiritual matters. It's like when He says "I am the door." We know Christ is not a literal door... and yet He most definitely is a spiritual door, a way to the Father.

Wrong! It does not say what you suggest it is saying. The above verse is usually used as a rebuttal by many opponents of the Real Presence,but it is faulty. First, it reads: THE Flesh....not MY FLESH. Jesus is making reference to our spirit/soul and not the flesh.

Second, when Jesus said: I am the door...he did not lay His hands on a literal door,bless it,break it and hand it out to be consumed-did He?

Those verses you used are taken out-of-context from the entirety of the Gospels and the Bible.

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Traverse:

This is a good point and one I have thought about before. My initial feeling is because even though they did not understand they knew Christ had "the words of eternal life." In the end it seems they would understand when communion is first instituted. If someone told you some bread was their body while they were in the room with you you'd understand it as symbolic and not literal by the pure fact that you are looking at this man talking about something that is clearly bread.

Actually it still goes a lot further and deeper. John 6-48-52


I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

Bread = Jesus' Flesh

The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

Why question a symbolic gesture?

They would not have anything to be confused about then. But I digress, in all honesty part of this may very well be semantics because I'm aware that the catholic belief (unless I am mistaken) is that they are literally the body and blood while retaining the physical appearance. That is, it's a spiritual transformation. I believe that we partake on a spiritual basis as well so this may very well be a semantics issue.

Sorry,those doubting and offended Jews were not considering it a matter of semantics. The took it at FACE VALUE! Again....why question a symbolic gesture? Did anyone get all bent-out-of-shape when Jesus said: I am the door. Care to show me where people were shocked that he meant to be an actual door?

Traverse:

Well, none. None are. Writings of the christians fathers are interesting and shed some light on the history of that time, but they are not inspired and therefore fallible.

Show me one place in any of St.Paul's 13 epistles where he states he is writing infallible scripture?

They're written by men who are not blessed with the ability to write scripture at that time

.

Not necessarily true. St.Clement's Letter to the Corthinians was read as Scripture for many centuries and almost made the Nt canon final cut. And by the way,some of NT letters such Hebrews,Revelation and 2nd Peter was in question.

Even in the new testament, a work completed before the first century came to close, words of division and strange doctrines were being spoken of. Just because something was written early, at about 200AD or so, does not mean it's accurate of Christianity when divisions were already existing before the year 100.

Which also included a lot of writings considered as Scripture by many communities,thus why the CATHOLIC CHURCH determined what was considered Apostolic in origin and orthodox.

Actually, I'll retract this statement. I did read an article that spoke of this, mentioning a few different fathers of the early church, but upon further review I've seen no one else comment on this and, as far as I can tell, the author of the article references some writings of Clement that are not I Clement and have disputed authorship anyway.

I'm not trying to spread lies, I'm just commenting on what I see. Just trying to have a discussion here is all.

Well that article was wrong and obviously trying to re-write history to suit a novel belief.