Many protestants say that the Holy Eucherist is not holy and is just symbolic, even though Jesus said 'This IS My body....do this in rememberance of Me.'
I dont understand why they do not believe that Holy Eucherist is the body and blood of Christ- is it because they feel that a human cannot turn a host into Christ? If so then they are right, but priests dont do that- they ask God to.
2007-12-26 15:02:58 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think it is because they interpret the Bible the way they like better, not the way it really is
It makes no sense, but who am I to try to convince them ? According to them, Jesus was not Jesus, He didn't say what He said, He said what He did not say
What I wonder is why do they bother to use the Bible at all. It would be easier, I think, just saying that God did this and that because they believe it's the way they think it should be. No need to involve God
2007-12-26 15:08:01 · answer #1 · answered by nadie 6 · 6⤊ 8⤋
Protestants believe in the Holy Trinity. It is an essential part of most of their faith. However, it is important to not group all "protestants" together as their beliefs can often differ. There is something about a Holy Spirit in the Bible. (Acts 2:1-5) It came upon Jesus's disciples on the day of Pentecost.
2016-05-26 21:50:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I find it difficult to believe you understand either the Protestant or Catholic teachings about Mass and Communion when you use EuchErist instead of Eucharist!
Also given the variety of Protestant teachings varying from sect to sect you might want to specify what and who the "many" are?
You should ask a theologian about this !
2007-12-26 15:08:45 · answer #3 · answered by J V 6 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Does it really matter? I don't care if y'all believe the grape juice is His blood and the bread is His body. That is why I'm a Baptist and you're a Catholic. Let it alone---its Jesus who we are honoring and remembering.
2007-12-26 15:44:53 · answer #4 · answered by the pink baker 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No,we know Scripture.It is self-interpreting.And Transubstantion is cannibalism that is not promoted anywhere in Scripture.And Consubstantiation is unbiblical as well.Following men instead of God's Word always leads to unbiblical doctrines.
2007-12-26 18:12:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Roman Catholicism believes that the taking of bread and wine by a confessed person converts to the blood and body of Christ via a process called transubstantation. For the less sophisticated, this was a tough idea to swallow, and when the Protestant movement started (actually before Luther, but with Luther, it became permanent), the more esoteric parts of religious dogma were tossed out.
2007-12-26 15:15:40 · answer #6 · answered by cattbarf 7 · 5⤊ 8⤋
I dont understand either. Even the Protestants leader Martin Luther believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
To those who say "it's impossible for Jesus to change the substance of the bread into his body", we answer "could He do it if He wanted to?" Catholics think He could, because He can do anything. He certainly had no problem changing water into wine. Catholics believe He wanted to do it, He promised it, He predicted it, and He followed through. "Take eat, this is my body." (Mat. 26:26, Mk. 14:22, Lk 22:19) After talking about the bread (manna) from heaven he says "I am the Bread of Life" (Jn 6:35). "For the bread that I will give...is my flesh" (Jn 6:51). Many of his followers had trouble with that back then (Jn 6:60) and many have trouble with it now. I understand people who have a problem with the idea. I did before I experienced it.
Early Christians "devoted themselves to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers" (Acts 2:42) They "met to break bread" (Acts 20:7). This wording makes it appear that the breaking of bread was the purpose of the meeting and central to their discussions together and unity. The "Bread of Life" (Jn 6:23) was a central part of Christian Sunday worship.
". . . Whoever eats (Greek: trogon) me will live because of me. . . Also the one who feeds (trogon) on my flesh will have life . . ." (Jn 6 :48-58)
The normal word in Greek for "eat" is Phagon but in this passage the author uses Trogon which literally means to crunch or gnaw. It is not just a metaphor. The verb tense of Trogon implies continuous consumption of the body & blood of Christ. Death was introduced to humanity through eating the forbidden fruit. (The act of actually eating a food) and now life is restored by actually eating the "bread of life", that is Christ's flesh.(1)
Simple Scripture on the Eucharist
We Catholics sometimes get accused of making complicated analogies when reading scriptures. Let us look at some simple Scripture passages that Catholics feel are hard to ignore when considering "the bread" of communion
Jesus said "Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness and died...I am the living bread that came down from heaven...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you will not have life within you."
Jesus was born in "Bethlehem" which, in Hebrew, literally means "house of Bread"
A manger was not a place where animals stayed. It was a trough where food was put to feed the animals. Mary laid Jesus in a place where food was placed
At the last supper, which was a passover meal, Jesus said "take this and eat it, this is my body."
Some Evangelicals believe that Jesus intended his phrase "I am the bread of life" to be understood in a symbolic way. Catholics believe that Jesus clearly spells it out "Very truly unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (Jn 6:53) Many followers left him saying "who can follow this teaching." Christ let them leave. He did not say "Hey, you have it all wrong, come back, its just a metaphor - a symbol- its not really my flesh"
Some Evangelicals believe that when Jesus said "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless,"(Jn 6:63)he was saying that his teaching "I am the bread of life" was just a metaphor. Catholics believe that Jesus was explaining to them that the limitations of their faith is their flesh so they could not see the spiritual truth in what he is saying. We must remember this was Jesus' response to them saying "This teaching is difficult, who can accept it."
Catholics are clear that the Eucharist is not just a spiritual warm fuzzy like when we get hit with the Holy Spirit at a prayer meeting. It is the only body Jesus has had since the ascension. We share in this body during communion and become his body (the Church).
Catholics believe this is a great mystery of the Christian faith. But we believe Jesus set it up very well before dropping this truth "bomb" on the disciples in the book of John 6. John 6:3 begins with the miracle of the loaves, he then talks about the miracle of the manna in the dessert (Jn 6:49). These both foreshadow his most powerful statement "I am the Bread of Life" and help him set the people up for what he knew would be the most difficult statement to understand that he ever spoke. He knew many would leave at that point and so after setting it up with the foreshadowing, after explaining it four times, and clarifying himself in Jn 6:63 he let them go (Jn 6:66). He did not chase after them to assure them he was just talking "symbolically" because they understood his words correctly and they could not accept it. Thank God the apostles stayed with him.
This belief that the Eucharist becomes the glorified body of Christ is not "consubstantiation." Catholics believe the Eucharist is fully Him (Transubstantiation). Catholics believe the miracle of the Eucharist is that it has the taste, smell, and shape of the wafer but that during the mass, the substance actually becomes Christ's glorified body which can only been seen through the eyes of Faith.
2007-12-26 15:27:08 · answer #7 · answered by tebone0315 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
It is not Biblical, when Jesus spoke those words to the apostles, He had not yet gone to the cross. He was standing in front of them. Did they eat the flesh or was it symbolic. All you have to do is study the Bible with the Holy Spirit as your teacher. Open the Bible and pray for wisdom, knowledge, and understanding of the will of God. Then you will be learning from the Bible, and not some man that is full of apostasy.
God be with you,
William, a bond-servant of Jesus
<'(((><
2007-12-26 15:11:48 · answer #8 · answered by BOC 5 · 4⤊ 9⤋
Yes, I'd say that the premise that bread actually turns into literal flesh (even though it still looks and tastes like bread) is pretty hard to believe.
People take Jesus SO literally that the guy can't even use the word "is" without people misconstruing it and getting all freaky about it. Listen: Jesus was using a metaphor. It's just that simple. The fact that Catholics believe that bread literally turns into human flesh because Jesus used the word "is" is absolutely crazy. No rational person should lend any credence at all to that notion.
The whole thing reminds me of the Clinton trials. "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
2007-12-26 15:07:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 10⤋
Jesus' speech made many of his disciples go back to the lives they had led before they followed Jesus." John 6:66
Jesus spoke LITERALLY to his disciples about eating his actual flesh and blood, that is why many left him. God said "let there be light" and there was light. God said "this is my body", "this is my blood" and it became his actual assumed body and blood.
2007-12-26 15:06:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 6⤋