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


Not occur at all, in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Valid Holy Orders are necessary to consecrate the Eucharist.


Makes me said she never had the real presence. I hope God accepted her anyway she was one of the most Christlike people I’ve ever met


I hope the same thing about my father. He was a good and devout man, but he had divorced his first wife and later married my mother. Their marriage was the best example I ever could have hoped for. He passed away (cancer) while I was in grad school.


She did the best she could with what was revealed to her and trusted in the Work of the Cross so I’m hopeful :slight_smile:


They could also become Eastern Orthodox.


You are going to have to specify what you are referring to. Can you be more specific as far as what doctrinal point you allege was not in continuity with the apostolic faith? Right now you are making a blanket statement that I cannot address, so I reject any blanket assumption on your part that Luther was not in continuity with the apostolic faith or that what he addressed was always the practice of the Church. Also, Luther did have authority. He was an ordained priest and doctor of theology (made so by the Church by the way), and as such he was responsible for the right teaching of the gospel, which is precisely why he was so concerned about the abuses of the Medieval Church. Would you argue that your priest doesn’t have authority to correct error? To not correct error would be neglect of his office.


I’m sorry, we were talking about apostolic succession. I did not deviate or broaden.


I’m sure you understand that my comments reflect only my own feelings and were not in any way intended to sway anyone else. When I say the doctrines of the Eucharist and Reconciliation do not excite me, I mean exactly that. I just don’t find a sense of need in pursuing them at this time. At some point that could change, of course, but I imagine that I would probably approach them as annual events only, which is strictly all the Church requires of it’s members.

One very fine gal said to me some time back that she couldn’t wait to access the Sacraments when she was going through the process. I’m afraid they just don’t have the same meaning for me, though I do feel very comfortable watching from the pew. Blessings to you. :slight_smile:


So Protestant perspective here:

First off a lot of Protestants do believe in some form of Real Presence.

Secondly, it is clear that belief in the Real Presence dates to very early in Christian history, so no one can be faulted for believing in it.

But, when someone like Jesus, who clearly very well liked to use nonliteral language, says “This wine is my blood”, and the wine doesn’t detectably change in any way, it is a pretty natural interpretation that Jesus is speaking nonliterally and that the wine is not being physically changed into blood that just seems like wine in every way. The symbolic interpretation, that in taking communion as a church and remembering Jesus and his sacrifices, Jesus is spiritually with us, makes enough sense. If people were as literal with everything else Jesus said as they were with the Eucharist, then we’d have a lot more one-eyed Christians and people looking around for Jesus body so they could literally walk through him to get to Heaven.


I thought that he couldn’t ordain because he wasn’t a bishop.


Oh, yeah, you may be right!


Interesting perspective! Thank you. So why did his disciples, in your opinion leave Him in John 6:66 saying the teaching was too hard and who could accept it? I am curious as to how that is explained away!

This is exactly the type of perspective I was looking for! Thanks for replying honestly.


In my opinion, it is not very different from John 3:1-15:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

So we can see a theme established in the gospel of John that Jesus speaks nonliterally, and people are overly literal in their interpretation of what He says and are confused. John 6 needs to be read in its fullest context to get the ‘symbolic’/spiritual interpretation.


Some time after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias), 2 and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the signs he had performed by healing the sick. 3 Then Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down with his disciples. 4 The Jewish Passover Festival was near.

5 When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” 6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.

7 Philip answered him, “It would take more than half a year’s wages to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!”

8 Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother,spoke up, 9 “Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?”

10 Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” There was plenty of grass in that place, and they sat down (about five thousand men were there). 11 Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks,and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish.

12 When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” 13 So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten.

14 After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

So, this is right after the miracle of the loaves and fishes, so food is on the disciples mind.


Skipping past the walking on water miracle…

25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

So, an important point here is that the food Jesus is talking about does not spoil. Will the Eucharist spoil eventually?

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Here we see Jesus emphasizing that faith in Him is the primary duty of Christians.

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

So in the analogy interpretation, Jesus starts talking about “the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” in the context of a comparison to the manna of Exodus.

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

So this goes to your question, I think. The “difficult teaching” is that Jesus is God, sent from Heaven. Not that he is literally bread.

I’m out of replies and space so I’ll continue after someone responds.


Interesting. I really appreciate your replies as I was very curious as to how a non catholic might respond. Of course I disagree, but that is to be expected. Thanks for responding.


Thanks, continuing where I left off…

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

So again I read this in the context of the emphasis that belief in Him grants eternal life. Physical bread, like manna gives you more temporary physical life. Belief in Jesus gives you eternal life, and moreover this is granted by the sacrifice of his body.

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves,“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Again the Jews are being very literal and very dense.

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

So here, especially out of context, is the strongest support for the literal interpretation that he becomes the Eucharist. I think that in context, what He means is that whoever believes in Him will benefit from His sacrifice and have eternal life, since for most of this chapter He has been talking about how believing in Him will grant eternal life.


60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

I think here, again they are confused about all this eternal life stuff, and possibly are taking him overliterally about eating him.

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

The bolded here I think lends credence to the idea that the “Bread” they need to “eat” is the Gospel, not literally His body.

From this time many disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Some are turned off by this talk of Jesus as being from Heaven and belief in him being the key to eternal life.

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Peter gets it. The words are what grant eternal life, the gospel, and belief in Jesus. That is the bread that gives true fulfillment and life everlasting.

This is how I and others read that chapter. As I said the doctrine of Real Presence and actual transubstantiation is a very early Christian teaching, and the Catholic Church has a rich tradition of Eucharistic miracles that also support that interpretation, but this makes the most sense to me.


Well, to be fair, that’s not what the Church teaches either, strictly speaking. Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist is real, but He’s present in a sacramental mode, not a physical mode. The physical accidents present are the physical accidents of bread and wine, and by the miracle of the sacrament, they become the physical accidents of the Eucharist. But, Christ is substantially present, not physically present, in the mode in which we know physical presence.

What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem, eh? OK, Tertullian… :rofl:


The doctrine of Transubstantiation was established in the 11th or 12th century so for less than half of the Church’s existence.

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