I have read WAAAYYYY to much on these forums whereby people ignorantly make these blanket statements without knowing anything about the issue. As a high anglican with lots of lutheran friends i take offense to such aligations especially when our 2 churches in partiuclar do have doctrines of REAL PRESENCE in the Eucharist.

So please stop using that as your topic for trying to convert us!


Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and probably others TALK about the real presence…however, since they have not maintained valid apostolic succession, they do not have a valid Eucharist DESPITE what they believe.

Without a valid priesthood, no transubstantiation…He is not in that bread and wine.

Doctrine or not, it’s not the real presence because there is no real priest with Apostolic succession. What gives the Lutheran or Anglican minister the right to cosecrate if they are not ordained by the Holy Spirit through a valid bishop?

1/2 my family is Lutheran. They don’t believe in the real presence. They used bread and grape juice then put the left over bread out with the donuts after the service.

What no Protestant denomination DOES have is the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

In other words they don’t believe that the *entire *substance (as opposed to the appearance and perceptible character) of the bread and wine becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ and nothing else.

They believe that the substance of bread and wine remains along with the substance being added of the Body and Blood of Christ. In other words not just ‘this is my body’ but ‘this is my body AND somehow stays bread and wine as well’ which is clearly not what our Lord stated!

I’d always thought that feelings about the ‘real presence’ were personal ones so i never understoof why Catholics could make the statement that only they have the real presence… I guess other churches recognise their priests as valid…so they could therefor see the real presence as valid too.

Would they just say: Catholics would never see us as valid priests, so of course they’ll say that… etc…

also, I know this is a bit off thread… but one of my friends has a Father who stopped taking communion (I believe he was protestant but I don’t think that’s relevent lol) He stopped taking communion because he was vegetarian.

At first I thought it was kinda funny, but it was obvioulsy a serious thing for him. I thought that it kind of missed the point of communion but…Does anyone know how I could respond to this if it happens again with anyone I know???

You do have the Doctrine of the Real Presence, I would agree. You DON’T actually have the Real Presence however. That can only be found in those Churches that have preserved valid Holy Orders with Apostolic Succession.

This is interesting I didn’t know that any Protestants believed in the Real presence.

That’s nice that they believe this- we Catholics should not be uncharitable to them. Though there may be problems with Protestant eucharist we should be happy that they have a kind of understanding of the Real Presence. I have heard that some Protestants use the Rosary and this is also a good thing. Why speak negatively of their faith?

lol so Orthodox who dont have the same wording is right but anglo-catholics who are probablly more in communion than the orthodox are, are seen as heresy lol. I would beg to differ on the apostolic succession to. We have always considered ourself catholic and the only reason you have the name Roman Catholic is because of a derogative term we attached to you to distingush ourselves, whom are Catholic, from that Roman one over there!

I’m starting to use a Rosary…I saw one at a friends house and asked her about it (neither of us Catholic).

I did however search for one without any kind of Marian thing on it, and to begin with i also used an anglican adaptation of some of the wording and also i miss off some of the mysteries…although I am now ok with all of the traditional Catholic wordings…

I don’t know how many protestants use it though, I don’t think many do, at least they never speak f it if they do lol

Once your priests were excommunicated, they could no longer be considered Catholic. They were not able to ordain new priests, so there are no valid Anglican priests.

My sister-in-law, who is a non-practicing Episcopalian (Anglican), were discussing The Real Presence the other day. She said that she believed in The Real Presence, even when she was a Baptist, and then a Methodist…

I asked her, since she believes God is truly present in the “blessed sacrament” in those denominations, why doesn’t she attend Church, and spend time in front of the Blessed Sacrament and even the Tabernacle in Catholic Churches?

Her response? “Well, I believe God is everywhere, I don’t need to go to those places because God is in everything and every person, and He’s, like, you know…everywhere and I don’t need to go to church…”

You see, most people (even most Catholics) don’t understand that it was Jesus who brought the Divine to us in His person - that sure, God is everywhere, but He is particularly present in the Body of Christ, that is, in the bread we offer to God in order to bring the Crucifixion to our own time and places. To believe in The Real Presence is more than believing “God is everywhere”, but is about believing in God’s Incarnation in Jesus, and Jesus’ Incarnation in the bread and wine upon Consecration.

Agreed! and people seem to ignore this.

Building on what Jean Marie said, God is everywhere. The old Baltimore Catechism teaches this. He is present in the Eucharist and in the Body of Christ-the people of the Church. I have always been hard pressed to understand how he is more present in one place over another, say the Eucharist vs. something else.

It really saddens me to see people use the Eucharist as a tool of division. I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a host consecrated by a RC priest and that of a Protestant if they were laid side by side and I didn’t know who consecrated which. Personally, I am thrilled that some Protestants have an understanding of the Real Presence. I know many RC’s who don’t.

Which group is better off? Sure some will argue that the RC’s get the grace of the sacrament in contrast to the Protestants. This is true. I would argue that the belief in the Presence itself, the Faith, is also a grace. Taking an Us vs. Them attitude seems completely uncharitable. Lets build bridges, not barriers. I think the Eucharist is the PERFECT bridge to get us to unity.

This seems a bit odd to say the least. Anyone that “believes” in the real presence in an Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, or Catholic sense should have no problem receiving communion even if they are vegetarian. Regardless, of the the views and definitions it is quite clear to all that the “accidents” of the sacrament should preclude vegetarianism from being an issue. That is in my opinion a rather minor point, however, and some may argue against it because of the hidden elements of the Lord’s body, blood, soul, and divinity.

The presence of the Lord’s body, blood, soul, and divinity should, however, trump everything else including vegetarianism. If a person is a Christian believer they should accept all that Jesus did and taught and they should readily accept what we learn from the apostles in the NT. Jesus consumed meat and wine. Peter was given a vision indicating that eating various animals, formerly thought to be unclean by the Jews, should be considered clean and should be eaten. God’s word should temper any and all vegetarian views.

Jesus says “Do this in rememberance of me” and expects us to eat his flesh and drink his precious blood. A believer does not defy the Lord. Moreover, a believer should rejoice in what the Lord is giving to us. I get really bad vibes from this kind of thing from vegetarians. I have nothing against being a vegetarian…afterall, I was at one time very close to being a total vegetarian myself. What is wrong in this case is that a person is placing their vegetarianism ahead of their Lord and Savior. Whether they realize it or not, this is a form of idolatry.

You’re expressing an ecumenical view. This certainly has merit. You need to be aware, however, that all ecumenists recognize that even though their goal is bridge building, nothing is said or done that sacrifices the truth. This view is important to all participants regardless of their relgious denomination.

First of all, Orthodox and Catholics have the same faith that was handed down from the apostles in regards to the real presence. So, yes the Orthodox Church has valid sacraments, which they call mysteries, because of the Apostolic Succession. They’ve kept the same beliefs as us Catholics. You claim that the Anglicans have the real presence also, but in the Anglican Communion the high church and the low church have a difference in not just the wording but also the BELIEFS. Can’t have different beliefs and be in union.

I was waiting for the broad or low churhc comment… that is not my point.,… evangelicals dont believe it, either do baptists, etc… my point is there ARE SOME and the majority on this board, some by their own confession, do not recognize this and constantly wave it in our faces which drives me nuts… if you are goign to claim your tradition is the Truth then at least read up on others before making bold claims!

I think the point some Catholics are making here is that just because you believe something, that does not make it true.


The only thing people ignore is that it is the RC Magisterium that arbitrarily gets to pick and choose who has a “valid” priesthood and “Apostolic Succession” and who does not.

Even the Orthodox would not have valid “Apostolic Succession” if the RC Magisterium came out tomorrow and dictated it so.

Folks are not so readily moved by such self-centered edicts.

Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

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