A serious question for our non-catholic friends please


#1

A serious question for our non-catholic friends please.

How might it be possible to believe in Manna for Moses AND not believe in Christ for US in the Eucharist? I’d really like to understand your position on this.

**Continued Blessings,
Pat/PJM **

John 5: 46-47, 44 “For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” “How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek”

Exodus 16:8 “And Moses said: In the evening the Lord will give you flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full: for he hath heard your murmurings, with which you have murmured against him, for what are we? your murmuring is not against us, but against the Lord”

**John 5:19 **“Then Jesus answered, and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner”

John 6: 54-58 “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me


#2

Well, I know Lutherans believe the body and blood is in, with, and under the bread and wine so not all non-Catholics deny the Real Presence.

From: lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=559

The answer to your question is that we receive in, with, and under the bread and wine the true body and blood of Christ shed on the cross, Jesus Christ Who is now risen and ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father. He is the same Christ, and when he gave us the Sacrament, as the Lutheran Confessions affirm, “he was speaking of his true, essential body, which he gave into death for us, and of his true, essential blood, which was poured out for us on the tree of the cross for the forgiveness of sins” (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration VII, 49).

In the Sacrament, our Confessions further teach, the same Jesus who died is present in the Sacrament, although not in exactly the same way that he was corporeally present when he walked bodily on earth. With Luther, the Formula of Concord speaks of “the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor yields space but passes through everything created as he wills…He employed this mode of presence when he left the closed grave and came through closed doors, in the bread and wine in the Supper…”[FC SD VII, 100; emphasis added].

And from wels.net/what-we-believe/questions-answers/lords-supper

How can we say that in communion we receive Christ’s real body and blood?

The clear promise that Christ gives to his church is, “Take and eat, this is my body,” and “This is my blood” (Matthew 26:26-28). Together with the bread and wine that we receive, Jesus, the Son of God, says he gives us his body and his blood that were given into death and poured out on our behalf.

The real presence of Christ’s body and blood is a special, sacramental presence that is beyond our full understanding. We say this to avoid crass, cannibalistic ideas that have no place here. This eating is real, but it is supernatural. We do not see or taste the body and blood. It cannot be detected by our senses. We do not digest it like ordinary food.

In summary, we believe that Christ’s body and blood are present in the Sacrament and received because of the promise of Christ and because Christ’s body is the body of the Son of God.

A more thorough study of this is available by reading Articles VII and VIII of the Formula of Concord, which deals with the connected subjects of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper and the person of Christ, the God-man.


#3

From all of whom I’ve talked to, (Protestants, that is) they do believe that their communion is valid. They believe they are receiving The Lord.

I’ve heard of some who dismiss it, but I never have met any Protestant who believes that. Ooops… Oh wait…ok, yes, I have- one, but to be fair, we never discussed it exactly. I think she believed that they did communion because the Lord says to do as such. There was not much strong emphasis on it, only that it was something they were to do.

From all the Protestants that I know, they did not put much emphasis so much on the communion aspect as they did other things pertaining to their faith. With Catholicism, Holy Communion is the main focus of the Faith, which makes sense since Scripture tells us there will be a time when an abomination of desolation will sit in the Holy Place- and all other Protestant sects don’t have that. And really only the Catholic faith fits with that.


#4

I’m a retired cradle catholic. The greatest thing about retirement is that I get to go to Mass daily. When I have dryness of prayer, or meditation, Mass is always very special, never have I not fell the presents of Our Lord. I truly fell sorrow for people who donot receive our Lord in communion. How do non-Catholics deal with it, I have no idea, I fell very sorry for them. Some advice, go to Mass as often as you can, it’s Gods greatest gift.


#5

As a non-denom protestant as of a few weeks ago (my conversion was rather sudden – not st Paul quick, but you know what I mean?), they believe it is not the real presence but symbolic.

They reference the breaking of bread when He says “this is my body,… this is my blood” and equate it to showing a picture of a child “this is my child”. The photo is not literally the child. therefore the bread and wine are not literally his flesh and blood.

I swear its like they ignore John 6 when He says “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”. I can’t ever remember hearing that version told in all my years of pre-Catholic church going.

Does this help OP?


#6

=AnneElizabeth;10225600]From all of whom I’ve talked to, (Protestants, that is) they do believe that their communion is valid. They believe they are receiving The Lord.

I’ve heard of some who dismiss it, but I never have met any Protestant who believes that. Ooops… Oh wait…ok, yes, I have- one, but to be fair, we never discussed it exactly. I think she believed that they did communion because the Lord says to do as such. There was not much strong emphasis on it, only that it was something they were to do.

From all the Protestants that I know, they did not put much emphasis so much on the communion aspect as they did other things pertaining to their faith. With Catholicism, Holy Communion is the main focus of the Faith, which makes sense since Scripture tells us there will be a time when an abomination of desolation will sit in the Holy Place- and all other Protestant sects don’t have that. And really only the Catholic faith fits with that.

Really?

I have heard this from Lutherns; but not elsewhere. Who seem to hold to a “reminder, a sign” or a “symbol” of , or some such similar thing.

However even if believed it is an impossible reality for it to be the true. WHY?

Because Direct Apostolic Succession is required
Mt. 10:1-8; Mt. 16:15-19; Mt. 18:18; Johnn 14:16-17, John 17:15-19, John 20;19-23 and Mt. 28:16-20 all have Jesus speaking ONLY to His Apostles.

IF this were true in other churches; other Faiths the CC would be just “another option.” IT’s not; Christ has Ordianed it as the Only Option:)

We hols to the truth that the CC alone truly does have the Real Pressence of Christ in Catholic Holy Communion.

Finding out HOW the protestant churchs can hold such a beleif was a motive in this OP.

What DON"T I and other Catholics get?:shrug:

God Bless,
pat/PJM


#7

unless they are rogue Protestants, who, BTW, “swear” that John 6 does in fact hold true…


#8

=katholikos12;10225746]As a non-denom protestant as of a few weeks ago (my conversion was rather sudden – not st Paul quick, but you know what I mean?), they believe it is not the real presence but symbolic.

They reference the breaking of bread when He says “this is my body,… this is my blood” and equate it to showing a picture of a child “this is my child”. The photo is not literally the child. therefore the bread and wine are not literally his flesh and blood.

I swear its like they ignore John 6 when He says “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”. I can’t ever remember hearing that version told in all my years of pre-Catholic church going.

Does this help OP?

THANKS, that was my understanding of their position too:)


#9

Actually, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches also have the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion.


#10

In addition to Lutherans, many Anglicans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion. I know from my short time in the United Methodist Church and from my 5 years at Duke Divinity School (a United Methodist Church seminary) that some Methodists also believe in the Real Presence.


#11

thank you


#12

I believe in the Real Presence. So did John Calvin. So did most of the Reformers.


#13

Zwingli did not. Do you have a source for Calvin’s acceptance of the real presence?

Jon


#14

=RyanBlack;10226012]Actually, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches also have the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion.

YEP, that’s why I din’t sa the RCC:D


#15

=cheezey;10226034]thank you

I admit to being somewhat surprised to discover so many non-catholic faiths believe in the Real Presence.

So this may sound like a DUMB question:shrug:

But is this believe held to be only a “Catholic” reality, or that any “faith” that claimes belief by that fact alone does HAVE Christ Real Presence available to them.

Like I said in my OPQ…

I’m trying to gain a fuller undestanding of what for me at least is a Critical Theological Issue.:slight_smile:

God Bless,
Pat


#16

RC belief is that valid orders are needed to consecrated a valid Eucharist asas well as a valid form of consecration.
t


#17

Not to defend Calvin too much, but to be fair, he didn’t think that the sacrament was a mere snack of remembrance in the middle of service. He felt, as I understood it poorly, that they were representations of the what the Holy Spirit was doing for the elect. That the outward form represented what what happening on this inside - a union with Christ.


#18

alright so im not 100 percent on my feelings on this issue. I grew up assemblies of God and I felt the importance and divinity of communion. in regard to whether it is literal flesh like I said im not completely sold on the catholic stance. the argument being, Jesus spoke in many parables so why couldn’t he be speaking symbolicly however this doesn’t diminish the importance. also many people take the creation in Genesis literally when much of it is symbolic poetry. sorry about my grammar im on my cell phone

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android


#19

Have you considered that the Christian Church has believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist since the beginning and that the denial of the true presence is a fairly modern notion which followed the so-called Reformation? Why would you suppose that this is the case? People 1500 years distant from the orignial Church all of a sudden began to deny what had been handed down to us directly from the Apostles. Why do you assume that they are more correct than the original Church on this matter?

When Christ spoke in parables, everyone knew he was speaking in parables. He even explained that they were parables. There was no confusion in what Christ said and did. If there was, and he allowed it to go unexplained, he would not be a good teacher. He allowed more than 5000 people to walk away from him after telling them that unless they ate his flesh and drank his blood that they would have no life in them. They took him very literally and he did not correct their interpretation of his words.


#20

Which still makes the Eucharist a “thing” rather than a “Who”. Calvin was dead wrong.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.