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

[mangy dog]

Originally Posted by 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

Very inspired my friend but first you have to convince them that the Blessed Sacrament is truly Jesus Christ and not a symbol.

Trained or versed or just a lifetime devout catholic-knowledgeable of his faith - debate is good to bring out the true objections and questions in disguise.

[tqualey]

Hi, Dnicoll,

I must confess, I really do not understand what it is you are saying. So, do me a favor and be a bit more explicit. My understanding is that you regard Jesus' words to identify what has happened: common bread and wine has been changed into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of these humble foods,

Zwingli believed that there was no change, and in fact this was just a memorial meal - in direct opposition to not only the Catholic Church's teachings but to the heretical views of Luther. So, if I understand you correctly, you are in agreement with the Catholic positon as the only accurate expression of Faith.

If my understanding, please, what do mean?

God bless

Originally Posted by dnicoll

Ref tqualey - that is exactly what my answer implies, as it is a response to the question "How do Protestants regard the words'This is my Body'". As a Catholic, I don't believe that, but many Sola Scriptura Protestants do - as I did before I became a Catholic. It is a doctrine particularly espoused by Zwingli.

[tqualey]

Hi, Mangy dog,

You're right. After all, that is why we are this thread to begin with.

Our Cathoic Faith is constently challenged. The Eucharist is just one of many areas where we are expected to provide to others the reason behind our beliefs. Knowing more about what others studied and written on this most Blessed Sacrament is a very worthwhile act:ivity to draw closer to Christ.

God bless

Originally Posted by mangy dog

Very inspired my friend but first you have to convince them that the Blessed Sacrament is truly Jesus Christ and not a symbol.

Trained or versed or just a lifetime devout catholic-knowledgeable of his faith - debate is good to bring out the true objections and questions in disguise.

[mangy dog]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Mangy dog,

You're right. After all, that is why we are this thread to begin with.

Our Cathoic Faith is constently challenged. The Eucharist is just one of many areas where we are expected to provide to others the reason behind our beliefs. Knowing more about what others studied and written on this most Blessed Sacrament is a very worthwhile act:ivity to draw closer to Christ.

God bless

I'm right there with you my friend.

[Traverse]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

The RP is biblical,because Jesus could not be more clear than John Ch.6. As I said once and I'll say it again,if the RP is false,then show me ONE writing in the NT or outside stating it is false or unbliblical?

I don't understand the point you're making here.

A writing in the NT is not going to say it's "false" because the concept was never argued. Christ says in John 6...

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

I read this and see a declaration that the jews' literal interpretation is faulty. You read it and you do not see that. The point is, I am showing you reasons I believe the RP to be unbiblical, you just don't agree with them.

As for outside the NT, I'll have to get back to you when I visit the writing of the church fathers in more detail. I can only speak with confidence from the biblical source now, but I feel that should be sufficient.

Originally Posted by Nicea325

If we do not NEED ANYTHING outside the Bible,then I recommend we also throw out Christ Church,since all we NEED is the Bible-right?

You take the premise but jump to an extreme conclusion to try to make me look silly. You can't throw out Christ's church, it's the pillar and foundation of the truth. You can't throw out fellowship and communion and offerings and the works of elders and deacons. Those are all matters of biblical doctrine so to go to the extreme you are saying you'd have to ignore the bible, which defeats the whole premise you state. You can't say "if we only need the bible we don't need the church" because the bible supports the church with its scripture.

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Public revelation did not cease because the Bible had been completed,show me where the Bible explicitly makes this declaration? No! It ceased with the death of the last Apostle.

1 Corinthians 13:8-10
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

My understanding of this might be different than yours. I'm not sure what the catholic position on this verse is. But you take those parts (prophecy, tongues, etc) and you think about the point of those early spiritual gifts. They were to convey God's message. These early Christians who did not have complete new testament scripture needed extra help. But you put all those "parts" together and what you get is the complete revelation of God. I would argue that the bible is the result of that complete revelation.

The key here is "when the perfect comes." If it ended with the last apostle's death then you couldn't say anything perfect had come. Someone died and that was it. But the resulting accomplishment of completed scripture makes more sense. And the word is called perfect elsewhere, as in James when it's referred to as the "perfect law of liberty."

Some argue that "the perfect" mentioned in this passage refers to Christ's second coming, but that doesn't make much sense to me because, for one, we both agree public revelation ceased already anyway so the perfect had to already come, and two, when Christ comes again the world ends anyway so it's largely irrelevant to comment on gifts ceasing anyway when they would last to the end of the world.

Originally Posted by Nicea325

I'll ask again,show me where Jesus or the 12 or the Bible states everything must be said and taught from the Bible-only? By the way, you are also dismissing Apostolic Traditions which is included in the Bible,thus it preceded the Bible.

Show me where scripture explicitly states it is the ultimate authority? You can forget 2 Tim 3:16 which has been rebuked a million times over. I want to read the word "ultimate" authority on all matters of faith and morals.

It's a logic issue. You're in a world filled with fallible men. You have the inerrent word of God and preachers/priests/what have you. You can listen to men and they can be wise and just, but how will you know they're just? How will you know they speak the truth? We have the bible to fact check what they say. This is a common sense issue, not a doctrinal issue.

Though I'd add that 2 Timothy 3:16 has not been rebuked a million times over properly. All I've heard is "yes scripture is good, but it's not the WHOLE truth" which is a logic that does not rise from this passage anyway. Here the scripture is described as being able to prepare someone for "every" good work. If every good work can be prepared for by scripture alone then what is the purpose of other truth at all? The "other" truth would be just another source of truth. The church isn't going to say anything that isn't also biblical. So what's the point in talking specifically about what a man said when we can just go straight to the bible anyway?

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Which begs the question: If the church fathers were a very "small sample" of the whole,then it must mean we might not be following the true "orthodox" teachings.

Yes, that is correct. You must compare the writings and reasoning to scripture because that is where we find inspired writings. You do not find inspired writings with them or it'd be scripture. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means that anything they say must be backed up biblically.

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Don't you find it at odds they attacked false and heretical teachings,yet if the RP were false,they ignore it completely?
[

I already told you I'm not super familiar with the writings of the church fathers and that I'm attempting to set out and read them. How can I find it at odds that "they said nothing negative about RP, while attacking other heresies" when I don't even know they did that for certain?

[tqualey]

Hi, Traverse,

This link may be helpful for a biblical basis supporting the Eucharist: http://www.askacatholic.com/holyquot...lic_verses.htm

God bless

Originally Posted by Traverse

I don't understand the point you're making here.

A writing in the NT is not going to say it's "false" because the concept was never argued. Christ says in John 6...

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

I read this and see a declaration that the jews' literal interpretation is faulty. You read it and you do not see that. The point is, I am showing you reasons I believe the RP to be unbiblical, you just don't agree with them.

[JaKael02]

Originally Posted by mangy dog

Very inspired my friend but first you have to convince them that the Blessed Sacrament is truly Jesus Christ and not a symbol.

Trained or versed or just a lifetime devout catholic-knowledgeable of his faith - debate is good to bring out the true objections and questions in disguise.

I agree to your second statement.

First statement I have a different experience. My wife is a stubborn Protestant. She would join me in the Bl Sacramental chapel and play on her Blackberry (Facebook) and it would drive me crazy. It wasn't long before she was kneeling and in complete adoration. Since then, she is now considering RCIA.

I've also had very spiritual moments with Christ in adoration. This is why no theology could convert me otherwise.

This is why I said the response I said. The Blessed Sacrament is powerful.

Kind Regards,

James

[David]

Originally Posted by ManOnFire

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

Great question, I have often wondered this myself. I would think that the real proof for those that claim they believe in the Real Presence, is how do they handle the bread and wine that is left over after communion. For example, how can you say you believe in the Real Presence, and then pour the left over wine down a drain?

Peace
David

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, JonNC

We certainly do agree on a lot! Now, let me see if I can address that pesky disagreement item.



So, in keeping with the thread, Lutherans regard the words of Christ, "This is my Body" as Him actually changing common bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity." There is no argument, like with some other Protestants, that Christ was using a metaphor or that the Jews misunderstood Him or 'The flesh profits nothing...' really means that Christ's Flesh is worthless. The words of consecration are accepted as valid with the meaning as clearly expressed by Christ in John 6 and at the Last Supper.

Moving on... I did a bit a research (on Catholic Answers, of all places...) and it seems like this question has come up before. After reading a number of responses, I copied the one I thought fit best. Here it is:

"For Catholics, the Real Presence in the Eucharist in which the change is described by transubstantiation can only be had if the one who presides over the celebration is a priest ordained in Apostolic Succession. In Lutheran theology, the ministry of believers acting at the Eucharist does not see any authority or power given through the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

For words of the minister to be effective, the minister must have the authority of ordination that is only found in those Bishops and Priests ordained in direct Apostolic Succession, since the authority is that of Christ himself who directly gave this authority to the Apostles and who in turn only transmitted this authority by the laying of hands in Holy Orders.
During the Reformation, the Lutheran ministry was separated from the sacramental episcopate and lost the historical succession of bishops from the apostles. Without this historical succession by laying of hands that has its authority from Christ, the Lutheran minister lacks the priestly character and the authority to preside at the Eucharist.
Without ordination that has a line that can be traced to Christ’s authority given to the Apostles, the priestly character is not given, and the Eucharist cannot be consecrated into the Body and Blood."

My understanding is this actually has it roots in Luther's idea of the "Priesthood of all believers". And, he specifically rejected the Catholic Prieshood.

And, here is my own personal focused opinion: for 15 centuries, ordained priests have been validly consecrating common bread and wine into the RP. Luther leaves the Catholic Church and creates several novel doctrines, possibly Sola Scriptura being his most famous, but, this priesthodd of all believers probably comes in second (?). Keeping the words is important, the issue is in changing their meaning. Since Luther rejected the CC, he very well could not go back to have his followers ordained, or have any further use for the CC as simply a practical matter. So, things were either done locally (nothing from Rome) or they were dropped.

Is there anything here that we can agree on?

God bless

Hi Tom,
I have great respect for CA in its portrayal of Catholic teaching. In the same manner, here is what the Lutheran Confessions say about the ordained clergy.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

and

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

They being the writers of the Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. They recognized the meaning of called and ordained here. Following that, Melanchthon lays down the Lutheran desire to maintain canonical ordination.

No one in our LCMS has the position to preach from the pulpit but the ordained pastor. No one has the position to administer the sacraments, including confession/Holy Absolution (emergency baptism excluded). I can go to the altar as a Lutheran and speak the words of institution and it means nothing, as I am not called and ordained.


Jon

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by David

Great question, I have often wondered this myself. I would think that the real proof for those that claim they believe in the Real Presence, is how do they handle the bread and wine that is left over after communion. For example, how can you say you believe in the Real Presence, and then pour the left over wine down a drain?

Peace
David

David,
The most reverent practice amongst Lutherans is and should be that as little reliquae as possible remain after the sacramental act, other than that which is to be used for the sick and shut-ins. Remaiing host should be reserved separate from unconsecrated bread, and if there is more remaining from the chalice than can be consumed by the pastor and elders, should be poured into a piscina, or if one is not available reverently poured in a special location directly onto the ground. The chalice should never be poured down the drain, and the consecrated host never thrown out or, as I've heard here said, thrown for the birds.

Jon

[Nicea325]

I don't understand the point you're making here.

A writing in the NT is not going to say it's "false" because the concept was never argued. Christ says in John 6...

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

I read this and see a declaration that the jews' literal interpretation is faulty. You read it and you do not see that. The point is, I am showing you reasons I believe the RP to be unbiblical, you just don't agree with them.

Not true. Are you aware that Paul was rebuking the Gnostics in many of his letters? Do you think something so false such as the Real Presence of the Eucharist would have been ignored by Paul? Actually you are wrong in regards to the Jews literal interpretation. Again,if Jesus intended it to be truly symbolic,why did he fail to use an Aramaic phrase or term to mean "represents" or "symbolizes my Body." Sorry,but your belief of a symbolic communion is false due to Christ usage of certain words and the Jews clear understanding of what he meant. I'll tell you why,during the Passover/Seder meal did the Jews literally eat a slaughtered lamb or a symbolic one? Tell me how one eats symbolism and yet gives eternal life?

As for outside the NT, I'll have to get back to you when I visit the writing of the church fathers in more detail. I can only speak with confidence from the biblical source now, but I feel that should be sufficient.

Unfortunately it is not sufficient to support a novel belief as the Eucharist and history says otherwise too.

1 Corinthians 13:8-10
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

My understanding of this might be different than yours. I'm not sure what the catholic position on this verse is. But you take those parts (prophecy, tongues, etc) and you think about the point of those early spiritual gifts. They were to convey God's message. These early Christians who did not have complete new testament scripture needed extra help. But you put all those "parts" together and what you get is the complete revelation of God. I would argue that the bible is the result of that complete revelation.

The key here is "when the perfect comes." If it ended with the last apostle's death then you couldn't say anything perfect had come. Someone died and that was it. But the resulting accomplishment of completed scripture makes more sense. And the word is called perfect elsewhere, as in James when it's referred to as the "perfect law of liberty."

Some argue that "the perfect" mentioned in this passage refers to Christ's second coming, but that doesn't make much sense to me because, for one, we both agree public revelation ceased already anyway so the perfect had to already come, and two, when Christ comes again the world ends anyway so it's largely irrelevant to comment on gifts ceasing anyway when they would last to the end of the world.

No where in that verse does Paul support your previous statement: Public revelation ended when the Bible was completed. What Bible was Paul referring to? How many books/letters did this Bible contain Paul was making reference to? Tradition says Paul did around 67/68 AD,so when was this Bible canonized?

It's a logic issue. You're in a world filled with fallible men. You have the inerrent word of God and preachers/priests/what have you. You can listen to men and they can be wise and just, but how will you know they're just? How will you know they speak the truth? We have the bible to fact check what they say. This is a common sense issue, not a doctrinal issue.

Though I'd add that 2 Timothy 3:16 has not been rebuked a million times over properly. All I've heard is "yes scripture is good, but it's not the WHOLE truth" which is a logic that does not rise from this passage anyway. Here the scripture is described as being able to prepare someone for "every" good work. If every good work can be prepared for by scripture alone then what is the purpose of other truth at all? The "other" truth would be just another source of truth. The church isn't going to say anything that isn't also biblical. So what's the point in talking specifically about what a man said when we can just go straight to the bible anyway?

Sorry,but it has been rebuked the correct way. Sorry,but again no where does 2 Tim 3:16 state the Bible is the ULTIMATE authority. It merely says: ALL scripture...does not read: ONLY Scripture is....or Scripture is the final authority. You are not practicing good Biblical exegesis. You are adding to the text which does not support your argument or belief.

Yes, that is correct. You must compare the writings and reasoning to scripture because that is where we find inspired writings. You do not find inspired writings with them or it'd be scripture. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means that anything they say must be backed up biblically.

Which again states: You have not studied the church fathers because everything you just said is exactly what they do: Back it up with the Bible and through Apostolic Traditions

I already told you I'm not super familiar with the writings of the church fathers and that I'm attempting to set out and read them. How can I find it at odds that "they said nothing negative about RP, while attacking other heresies" when I don't even know they did that for certain?

For the exact same reason that you cannot say their writings are not valid or supportable for sound doctrine. And why? Because of your admittance you are not familiar with their works. Do you think I am lying about their works?