If Christ is not present in the Eucharist, then how come Catholics have the Holy Spirit?


#1

I want non-Catholics to think about this.

Let’s assume for a moment that Christ is **not present **in the Eucharist (as Catholics believe). That makes Catholics idolators, isn’t it? They adore the Eucharist, bow down in front of it, so they’re commiting the most horrendous kind of idolatory on Earth!

So, if they commit such idolatory, **they certainly don’t have the Holy Spirit **in them, for the Holy Spirit is the **Spirit of Truth **and not the spirit of error.

But then, Catholics confess that Jesus is Lord. And look what the scripture says,

“Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:3)

So the very fact that Catholics confess that Jesus is Lord is **sufficient proof **that they have the Holy Spirit, which further proves that they cannot be idolators, which ultimately proves that **Christ is present in the Eucharist **(otherwise they would be idolators)!


#2

If I were an especially brave and confident protestant, I might respond that Jesus also assures us that

Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.
(Matthew 7:21-23)

But, then again, I have never encountered a protestant who was confident and brave enough to cite this particular passage in the presence of a Catholic (in fact, most protestants I’ve talked with are unaware of this passage). Although this Scripture might challenge your premise with some success, it opens the protestant to at least two other more significant weaknesses in general protestant theology.


#3

Greetings Iaskquestions,

I happen to love to research the answers. I am a converted agnostic. :slight_smile: Not to Roman Catholicism though so my input may be of interest to you. I hope I do the quote/response thingy’s right. :confused:

That would be correct. Bowing down in worship to any material object is considered idolatry. In fact even praying to anyone other than God we would also consider the most heinous sin. They are both practices strictly forbidden in Holy Scritpure.

So, if they commit such idolatory, **they certainly don’t have the Holy Spirit **in them, for the Holy Spirit is the **Spirit of Truth **and not the spirit of error.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit would lead someone into idolatry?

But then, Catholics confess that Jesus is Lord. And look what the scripture says,

“Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:3)

So the very fact that Catholics confess that Jesus is Lord is **sufficient proof **that they have the Holy Spirit, which further proves that they cannot be idolators, which ultimately proves that **Christ is present in the Eucharist **(otherwise they would be idolators)!

Not necessarily true iaskquestions. There are other religions thay *say *Jesus is Lord that are clearly not christian. The question is … what is the meaning behind what Paul is saying here? What does it mean to confess Jesus as Lord? Interestingly the passage you quote, 1 Cor 12:3, in ancient Hebrew translations uses the Tetragrammaton YHWH or the name of God, Yahweh. So one shade of meaning here as understood by the early believers that to confess Jesus as Lord was to confess … Jesus is Yahweh. This x’s out a number of groups out there. One that comes to mind is Jehovah’s Witnesses.

More insight to confessing Jesus is Lord Paul himself shares in the book of Roman’s chapter 10.

Rom 10:1-13

10 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “Whoever does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
TNIV

No offense to my Roman Catholic friends but this meaning of confessing “Jesus is Lord” flies in the face of Roman Catholic teaching on justification. Another interesting fact about this passage is Paul’s quote of Joel 2:32 from verse 13 which states … “those who call upon the name of the LORD (Yahweh) will be saved”, applying it to Jesus again. :thumbsup: Another clear reference to the Deity of Christ.

With regards to the glory or nature of God being present in material objects and worshipped one of many passages…

Isa 42:8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols. TNIV

Hope that helps.

Peace,
theLogos


#4

I did get the quote thingy’s right! :smiley:

Greetings David,

It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

Why might a protestant consider it a weakness to their theology? Curious.

Kind regards,
theLogos


#5

One other point of note iaskquestions. If you read the writings of the ECF’s you’ll find 3 views expressed in their writings … the real presence, a dual type of real/spiritual presence and also a purely spiritual interpretation. If my recollection is correct all within the first 400 years of Christianity. Within that frame, those who held to the first didn’t believe it to the degree that they worshipped it though. You will find no evidence of worshipping the eucharist even amongst those who did hold to the real presence view. If you know of any evidence stating such I would be interested to see it.

Peace,


#6

“Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but ***he who does the will of My Father ***in heaven.”

Something against sola scriptura.


#7

Thank you for posting that ssejll and David. Those words of Christ do not contradict what I believe (and I think I would be considered protestant). Not one iota. In fact I would say it adds more to the fullness of what it means to confess Jesus Christ as Lord! In fact a compliment I would add to that is found in Luke’s version.

Luke 6:46-49

46 "Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 As for those who come to me and hear my words and put them into practice, I will show you what they are like. 48 They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But those who hear my words and do not put them into practice are like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."
TNIV

Please forgive me as I am new to these forums but has someone led you to believe that protestants preach a faith that is not preceded and/or followed by repentance? Curious.

Kind regards,
theLogos


#8

I have to correct what I said a while ago. It’s sola fide not sola scriptura.

Well I believe protestants believe in sola fide. Salvation is attained through faith alone saves. I understand that protestants believe that good works are just the effect of that faith (in grace of course as we Catholics also believe). Protestants as I believe do not believe that “works” are not parts of justification but the effect of it. In my point-of-view it is a contradiction to the passage “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling…” (Philippians 2:12)

Well I’ve been off-topic so I have to stop.

May I ask what denomination you come from theLogos? You seem to believe the Real Presence and I seldom hear Protestants that do so. I am willing to bet that you are not a Born-Again Fundamentalist.


#9

Greetings theLogos.

I hope you will not fault me for not responding directly to your question to me (which has already been answered in some regard by another Member) because I wish to more fully explore this other topic you have raised.

I am unclear on your distinction between “spiritual” and “real.” After all, most Christians regard the Holy Spirit as BOTH “spiritual” and also “real.” These attributes are NOT mutually (or in any way) exclusive. Likewise, the Eucharist is BOTH a “spiritual” presence and ALSO a “real” presence. Sometimes a theologian may write or preach a message which tends to emphasize one or the other of these characteristics, but that is not intended to DENY the characteristic which is not emphasized.

St. Irenaeus (writing in Adversus haereseres in the late 100’s) makes this duality clear:

The Eucharist confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him those things which are His, declaring in a fit manner the gift and the acceptance of flesh AND spirit. For as the bread from earth, receiving the invocation from God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of TWO ELEMENTS, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when we receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptable, but have the hope of resurrection into eternity.

Origin (in his Homilies on Exodus) admonished his congregation in these words:

You know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a PARTICLE of it fall, and lest ANYTHING of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if ANY of it be lost through negligence. But if you observe such caution in keeping His Body and properly so, how is it that you thing neglecting the Word of God is a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?

I maintain that the Eucharist is BOTH spiritual AND real, and I have presented the testimony of two ECFs to illustirate my position. I ask the OP to present one single instance of ANY ECF who explicitely disputes that the Eucharist is BOTH “spiritual” AND “real”


#10

Which are these religions? Could you provide me with a link?

How does it? :confused:

Are you saying that we are not confessing that Jesus is Lord?


#11

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.