St Ignatius, born 35 AD believed in the Real Presence, why do Protestants deny RP?


Agreed. As I grew up Protestant (baptized Lutheran), it’s a pet peeve of mine when fellow Catholics try to lump all Protestants into one giant category.


Matthew 26:26-28* and similar passages from Sacred Scripture are enough for me.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

*New American Bible, Revised Edition


Ok now I guess I should defend myself. I clarified later that I meant Baptist for whom many (my friends from college) it’s a symbol and I don’t know any Lutherans.

Lutherans and whatever other Protestants can believe all they want that theirs is more than a symbol but there’s no apostolic succession, no chair of Peter and therefore no authority.

You’re right, we can’t lump them because there are thousands of churches all interpretating the Bible (a Catholic Book) with as many ideas on truth as there are grains of sand on the beach. So yes, excuse me. No unity there. Sad.


Agreed on all points. Sorry, I didn’t mean to attack you or anything. I was speaking in general terms and wasn’t replying to anyone in particular.


While I understand that can frustrate people, I try to learn the history of the major denomination. However, even those denominations, such as Baptist or Lutherans, have no real coordination with each other to have a consistent system. Anglicans are really bad at that too.

But there’s a few generalisations that can be made across nearly all Protestant denominations, such as the rejection of the Pope, the lack of Real Presence, and the lack of a proper Holy Orders (and maybe even other Sacraments).


Yes. Eloquently put. Thank you.


No offense taken and I do understand your point.


Yes, but we would challenge what is properly meant by “apostolic succession.”


Well with His positive commandment to do this and His reference to having life in you and not having life in you in regard to consuming and not consuming…I’d say it matters.

In my own experience, rooting out personal sin and becoming more holy is directly tied to confession and the Eucharist. Through the sacraments, I have overcome many great faults and I have many more to tackle so I can grow in virtue. The Eucharist enables me to have life in Christ and for Him to live through me (and it matters how reverently and purely I receive Him). In my own case, it is tough to live out all of His commands (small and large) without both sacraments.


This seems rather confusing as a belief. Seems overly complicated and confusing


So you’re saying that however Martin Luther understood apostolic succession and the papacy in contradiction to what Church taught from the beginning, is what all Christians should embrace? Why? Where does his authority come from? He would have to have authority to change the teachings of Christ’s Church after 1500 years. He was Catholic, apart from the widespread scandal which is undeniable, where did His innovations find their root? Peter creates scandal but Our Lord called him “the rock” and declared that He would build His church upon the rock and gave him the powers of the keys. Did ML have the power of the keys?

I’ll add: Jesus prayed “may they all
Be one as you and I are one, Father.” The Pope a sign of unity. Lutherans aren’t even unified and they even reject some of what Luther himself believed (I.e. Marian issues).


No, I would reject the presupposition that your definition of apostolic succession is what the Church believed from the beginning, and that Luther’s understanding returned the idea of apostolic succession to the apostolic understanding of the idea (though the apostles don’t use the term). I would argue that the current understanding of apostolic succession doesn’t even jive with what Ireneaus meant by it when he coined the term.


Read John 6:66. Many of Jesus’s disciples thought the teaching was confusing and hard to believe also. They left. Those who read John 6 and don’t believe Christ and take Him at His word, leave Him also.


But what he believed was in continuity with nothing (it was an innovation contrary to what was actually practiced in Christ’s Church for 1500 years) and he had no authority. No?


Yes, Lutherans believe in a Real Presence, but they do not believe in Transubstantiation. The Lutheran belief is what Catholics would call Consubstation (yes, I know Lutherans do not use that term).

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Lutherans believe the Host becomes the Body of Christ and is still also bread at the same time. It’s both.

Catholics do not believe that. We believe the bread becomes the Body of Christ and only has the accidents (characteristics) of bread, but that it’s substance has changed. The substance of bread is gone, but the characteristics remain.

Luther denied transubstantiation outright, while still believing in the Real Presence.

My point: yes, Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, but they don’t believe the exact same thing as us.

Question: would a Lutheran adore a consecrated Host, like we Catholics do? What does a Lutheran priest do with the crumbs after communion?

We Catholics treat each crumb as we would treat Jesus Himself, and treat each tiny piece with reverence and awe.

God Bless.


How is this possible? How can the Real Presence exist without transubstantiation? I am Catholic so I don’t understand this belief.

Does it really matter if the host is bread as well as Jesus? I mean we go to Adoration because the host in the monstrance and Tabernacle is Jesus. But is the host not physically bread? I mean isn’t it still made of grain and such like the blood is wine but it’s Jesus? Otherwise wouldn’t the blood taste like blood and the host like flesh?

Forgive me if I am ignorant of this, I don’t understand. Side comment, do Lutherans from a Catholic perspective have the Real Presence? Perhaps that is too controversial to ask here?


From the Catholic perspective they do not have the Real Presence, in part because they don’t have validly ordained priests.

The closest Protestants you’ll find to the Catholic view (on this and on most subjects) are the Catholic wing of the Anglican Church (e.g. me), many of whom are Catholic on basically all questions but who remain, for various reasons, out of communion with Rome.


In theory though, since Martin Luther was a Priest, who I presume as such could say mass. Could he not have done the laying down of hands and thus ordained priests which hundreds of years later means they have the Real Presence?

Or would they argue outright that laying down of hands isn’t needed since no Apostolic succession


He could have, and they could be like the Orthodox. Likewise for the Anglican Church. However, Luther and Cranmer both rejected the view of Holy Orders as a sacrament, and therefore revised the rites to reflect that non-sacramental view. As a result, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, the true priestly office was no longer handed down in those traditions.


Ok here is something I have never had an answer to - assuming the Methodist preacher at my old church is not validly ordained. (My mother did believe in the real presence but didn’t convert to RCC due to being put off it massively. )So in a Methodist church does the transubstantiation occur but it goes unrecognised by most of the congregation, or does it not occur at all?

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