Protestants' eucharist and corinthians


#1

Hello,

If Protestants, as some do, believe that receiving their communion is as important an event as when Catholic’s receive communion, does this mean that Corinthians cannot be used to prove that Jesus is actually eaten?

Thank you


#2

In order to have a valid Eucharist you also have to have validly ordained clergy.
How many founders of these other faiths had their predecessors present at the Last Supper?


#3

Just because someone misunderstands doesn’t change the truth of the matter.


#4

Huh?


#5

Which Protestants believe this? I don’t think there are many which do so and if you can identify the denomination you’re talking about, we can see what they actually teach and compare it to Corinthians.


#6

Hi!

…the problem is that they do not.

…most Protestants believe in a “symbolic” celebration; some even argue that Catholics are idolaters because we Believe that the Eucharist is in deed Jesus’ Body, Blood, and Divinity.

They reject Transubstantiation not because it is a difficult word (term) but because they do not even believe that Christ instituted any Sacrament, including Baptism (of course this depends upon the branch/theology of the group–some accept Baptism as a Sacrament but not in the grave manner as the Catholic Church Believes).

They usually espouse what they reject with “not necessary for Salvation;” this, of course, is why there are so many understanding of Protestantism–every group identifies with or reject tenets of Catholicism (and their various offshoot in Protestantism) as their “leader/s”/“founder/s” envisions or dismisses.

…as for offering Scriptures… it is almost impossible to break through their institutional upbringing… on this they are similar to the Jehovah Witnesses as these profess to be the visible church of God as they reject the Word of God in favor of their group’s “interpretation” of the Word of God.

Maran atha!

Angel


#7

I know non-denominational Christians (not Lutherans) who told me that Jesus doesn’t have to be actually eaten for communion to be so important that sinning towards it is blasphemy.


#8

Hi!

…but if it is not Christ, then why is there any value to the Eucharist?

…opinion does not make something right or give something value (outside of that which is opinioned and outside of those who hold to such opinions).

…the Jehovah Witnesses are quite adamant about their “scholars” and “theologians” having it right (and the rest of Christendom being wrong); yet, their theology rejects Yahweh God’s Revelation of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

…neither the first nor the latter accept Apostolic Teaching: The Body and Blood of Christ are in deed Consumed by those who are Christ’s Disciples:

[FONT=“Garamond”][size=]23 For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you

: that on the same night that he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, 24 and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me’. 25 In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ 26 Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, 27 and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily towards the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; 29 because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. (1 Corinthians 11:23-29)
St. Paul, along with the rest of the Apostles, did not Teach a symbolic Breaking of the Bread (Communion); they did not Teach an imaging of the Lord’s Supper; they Taught the Real Presence of Christ (what the Church termed Transubstantiation) in the Bread and Wine (Holy Eucharist/Communion in both species: bread and wine).

“Feel good” theology has no part in the Truth of the Lord’s Supper.

Maran atha!

Angel

[/size][/FONT]


#9

Taking Protestant communion unworthily is to act “unworthily towards the body and blood of the Lord” because they too “recognize the Body” of Jesus as God’s body, through bread and grape juice


#10

I see their point. We also consider it blasphemous to disrespect our Catholic symbols. Like the Crucifix or any of our images of Saints.

But there’s a difference between sinning against a symbol and sinning against the real thing.

Let’s take a recent case, of a woman who published a symbolic beheading of the president. She outraged many people. But she was not incarcerated nor taken to court.

What would have happened if she had actually carried out that symbolic act?

So, although it is blasphemy to sin against a symbol of Jesus. It is blasphemy of a much higher order to sin against the Holy Eucharist, because it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I hope that helps.


#11

No doubt. But, Protestant communion is an act of disobedience towards God.

1st. God did not establish any Protestant denomination. God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, established Catholicism.

2nd. God did not authorize Protestants to confect the Eucharist. God authorized the Catholic Church to confect the Eucharist.

3rd. Protestants don’t regard it a sin to miss their gatherings. God regards it a sin of the highest order to miss the Mass.

3a. Why? Because it is in the Mass that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered. The one remaining sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. And those who neglect this gift of God, insult Him to the highest degree and make themselves His enemies:

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


#12

I am not sure Jesus has to be actually present in order for the higher blasphemy to be committed. Catholics commonly say that the Protestant communion is just a symbol, but to them Jesus instructed that it is to be treated as if it were Him. They object only to eating Jesus, not to respecting communion as if it were Jesus


#13

Hi!

…I’m not versed in most things… but I doubt that a symbolic celebration has the same meaning as the Belief in the Actual Presence–it seems that you are arguing for and against Transubstantiation; how can a symbol be of grave matter?

Maran atha!

Angel


#14

Hi!

…either you are confused, your Protestant sources are confused, or the Church and the Apostles are confused… the Lord’s Supper cannot be an “elective” symbol and, simultaneously, a mandate to Fellowship with the Actual Presence of the Lord.

What you are describing is the Holy Spirit Guiding the Church and the world into confusion.

…yet, we know that Yahweh God is not a God of confusion!

Maran atha!

Angel


#15

I guess it comes down to which is more special, the belief of the Catholics or that of the Protestants on communion. Does Jesus’s physical presence make that much of a difference?


#16

The first thing we have to remember is that it doesn’t really matter what “we” think. This is God’s Teaching.

Here’s what we’re comparing.

The ideas of a group of Protestants whose teachings are not God’s to;

The Word of God brought to us by His infallible Teaching instrument.

In denying the presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, they are already committing sin.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

You say that they discern the Lord’s body. But, they, admittedly do not. Since they call it a symbol of the body. Thus, they recognize that their eucharist is only bread.

Catholics commonly say that the Protestant communion is just a symbol,

No. We say that Protestant communion is ineffectual. They call it a symbol.

but to them Jesus instructed that it is to be treated as if it were Him.

To us, Jesus instructed them to obey the Church. But they don’t. So, what does it matter what else Jesus instructed when they don’t obey the most elementary command.

They object only to eating Jesus,

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Enuff said. They disobey Jesus on every point.

not to respecting communion as if it were Jesus

On the contrary, if they really believed that communion were so important, they wouldn’t miss any gatherings where communion was offered. But, you ask them if they consider it a mortal sin to miss their gathering. Only the Catholic Church considers it a mortal sin to miss the Mass. Because it is the Catholic Church which holds the Holy Eucharist in the highest regard.


#17

It comes down to whose authority you accept.

Jesus Christ’s authority through His Church? or…

Whosever interpretation of Scripture alone you are following.

Does Jesus’s physical presence make that much of a difference?

How important is it for you to gather to worship the once for all and only remaining sacrifice of our Lord, for the remission of sins?

Here’s what Scripture says:

Hebrews 10:25-31King James Version (KJV)

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

It sounds as though God thinks it is mightily important. Important enough that people who deny it will be making themselves His enemies.


#18

Even for Catholics its not about how many times you go to communion. Communion doesn’t automatically make you holy. It gives an influx of actual grace so the person can become holy. Protestants believe this happens on a daily basis, sometimes at communion, but it is not necessary to have communion. The Bible doesn’t say physical communion is necessary. That is a canon law of the Church.


#19

I want to be very careful not to misinterpret the Bible. Does Corinthians mean “not discerning the Lord’s body as physically present” or discerning the body in another sense? I am use to the Catholic interpretation, and new interpretations can seem odd when you are not use to them. So, is it definitely certain that the Catholic interpretation is the only interpretation the text allows??


#20

Hi!

…did I misread your “religion” description or are you not sure what team you’re playing for?

…it is not about “feel good” theology!

…it is about the Word of God!

…it is God Himself that makes the Demand of the Breaking of the Bread; it is God Himself that Commands man to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

…it is God Himself that Ordains His Apostles to Observe this very Specific Practice:

[FONT=“Garamond”][size=]23** For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you:**

that on the same night that he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, 24 and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me’. 25 In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ 26** Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death,** 27 and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily towards the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; 29 because a person who eats and drinks **without recognising the Body **is eating and drinking his own condemnation. 30 In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. 31 If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. 32 But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:23-32)
Where do the Apostles Teach: “optional” or “symbolic” or “choose your own interpretation?”

Christ’s Ordination: eat My Body; drink My Blood–till He Comes Again (Parousia).

The problem you are having (as most non-Catholics) is that you want to inject your interpretation of the Word of God and believe and pass it as the actual Word of God–it is as though the Holy Spirit is Inspiring man to have a multitude understanding of God’s Word, all conflicting, all confusing.

Consider the fact that if Christ’s Church has erred on this she has done so because the Apostles erred and Taught the error as Christ’s Ordination.

What is the probability that 1500 years removed understanding is correct while the Apostles’ Understanding (Ground Zero) is in error?

Maran atha!

Angel

[/size][/FONT]


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.