If so, don’t you think this is a violation of Chalcedon?

If they asked the questions you presented above they would also be Protestants like you and I. I am speaking form experience. I was at one time a Roman Catholic. I accepted the catholic teaching of transubstantiation however I never felt comfortable with the adoration of the bread wafer in a gold monstrance. I was one of the Catholics who was glad to see the practice diminish greatly after Vatican II. However this current pope has re introduced and encouraged the practice…it was my love for the sacrament of the Lords Supper and other issues that led me to question and read and in the process over a period of time I became a Protestant and I am now a Presbyterian. If anyone seriously examined the questions you asked as I did they could not believe any longer in the catholic teaching of transubstantiation or the mass. I no longer believe in that teaching and I see the mass as an abomination and blasphemy of the one time on…

John 19:30 says it is finished, according to Rome the Mass says it is continual, it is not sufficient, it must go on if you are to be saved perhaps. However the mass is not based on Gods word. It is a man made form of worship. Father Catholic are ingrained from early years to accept almost like faith that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. I am not sure all Catholics rally believe it anyway. They just never take the time to investigate the whole issue.

If they asked the questions you asked Michael, i.e Do you take Christ’s words literally when he said “This is my body” (toute estin to soma mou)? If so, since the verb “is” (estin) is in the present tense, do you believe that it was his body at the time of the original Lord’s supper? If not, why are you at liberty to take it non-literally here, but insist that it is literal otherwise? In other words, how could not be literal here, but be literal after Christ’s death? If so, don’t you think this is a…

Dudley, I think the understanding that Christ’s sacrifice was full, perfect, and sufficient doesn’t preclude the Roman Catholic understanding that Christ is truely and substantially present. the Mass or Divine Liturgy of Orthodoxy has always been called a “bloodless sacrifice” in that Christ doesn’t die all over again every time there is a Eucharist. What is happening is that Christ’s sacrifice is being re-presented sacramentally. This is because Christ’s death and resurrection have a power that is beyond a specific historical time (in some ways, the Lutheran Scholastic Eucharistic theology might actually fit this more obviously).

Incidentally, Jews also believe the Passover Seder is a re-presentation of the same Passover of the Hebrews in Egypt. It is not a memorial in the sense of simply bringing to memory something that happened a long time ago. Through the Seder they experience the redemption of God: – “Why Is This Day Different Than Any Other Day? Today we are no longer slaves”. This is similar to the anaphora in the Christian Eucharist, it is a re-presentation of the salvation of God.

I believe in the real, objective presence, but I consider the metaphysics secondary (though Transubstation is not wrong provided one is an aristotilian). I don’t think there’s a huge difference in Catholic or Orthodox views. Christ is present in the Eucharist and this persists as long as the appearance of bread and wine remains. This is also consistent with the early Church’s teaching.

The Reformed “spiritual presence” is needlessly implying a dualism that need not exist (and I disagree with the calvinist idea that a body could not be present in many places at once and be unbroken), but I think the Reformed understanding is much better than the Zwinglian understanding, which was reprehensible.

“Everybody interprets the Bible differently; how do I know what’s right?” Is Christianity a matter of opinion or a matter of fact?

This is from the Westminster Confession. Not everything in the Bible is perfectly clear to the casual reader. Scriptural interpretation must come from careful study and always in context and harmony with other passages of Scripture. We are never to interpret Scripture based on personal experience. For this reason, there are some things denominations interpret differently.

I believe as a Protestant thatt Salvation is the unconditional gift of God. How we define our religion does not determine our salvation. Yes, the Catholics have beliefs which are not Biblical. But so-called “evangelical”and Protestant denominations too.

However as a Reformed Protestant I believe in the “Sovereignity of God” who is infinite in his Knowlede and understanding. I began to also question how can any man define how Christ makes himself present in the Lords Supper.That is exactly what the Council of Trent attempted to do. How Christ makes himself present to us in His Supper is a mystery of the almighty and to base our belief on any thing which contradicts scripture or goes beyond it as does the roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation is arrogant and a denial in itself of our own finite understanding and Gods total sovereignity. To assume we can define what God who is infinite and complete in His knowledge is to commit the same sin Lucifer did. It is to assume we are as good as God himself.

A teaching like transubstantiation leads us from the truth and adds many superstitious rituals which lead away form the one truth of the Gospel, Christ alone saves us by His one time sacrifice on Calvary for all who are born again in Him.

Once a Catholic is born again, he would see the errors of Roman Catholicism, and come out from it, that’s what happened to me and many others.. You would know that you couldn’t remain under the pope’s authority, and be a born again Christian, most of them don’t know they need a saviour, and that they are lost – they follow the Roman Catholic teachings, which is the broad road. Reflecting back I never heard any true sound preaching of the Word of God as a Roman Catholic but I heard many fables including the doctrine of transubstantiation.

II Tim. 4: 1-5

” I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”

The brief questions Michael had I also had and found that my answers denied that I could any longer believe in the teaching of transubstantiation. I at one time did believe and now have for those who believe that Christ’s words must be taken literally are these same questions followed by my answer now as a Reformed Protestant.

Do you take Christ’s words literally when he said “This is my body” (toute estin to soma mou)? No not anymore

If so, since the verb “is” (estin) is in the present tense, do you believe that it was his body at the time of the original Lord’s supper? No
If not, why are you at liberty to take it non-literally here, but insist that it is literal otherwise? In other words, how could not be literal here, but be literal after Christ’s death?
If so, don’t you think this is a violation of Chalcedon? Yes I now do
Michael said ” I am most certain that thoughtful people have worked through this, I have just never heard an answer that seems to make any sense.” I now agree with Michael.

In faith,

Dudley

I am an ex Roman catholic and now a Reformed Protestant. When I first left Roman Catholicism in 2006 I became an Episcopalian. My reason for leaving was the papacy of Benedict and the direction I believed the Roman catholic church was heading. I did believe in the Roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation and at first joined a high Episcopal church that also held that view. However I then began a study of the Reformation and the Council of Trent. My views on the Lords Supper gradually became Calvinistic and then more Zwiglian. I now believe the Lords supper is a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary but I believe that the celebration of the supper is symbolic of his saving act and not actually a re enactment and sacrifice anew. I now no longer believe in the rc teaching of transubstantiation. I also began to ask the same questions Michael asked and it brought me to the conclusion that I was a Reformed Protestant in my beliefs on The Lords Supper and Baptism. It is one reason why I became a reformed Protestant in 2007.

Michael said “my question has only to do with those who hold to a Real Presence in body and blood (i.e. not a spiritual Real Presence).

It is also true as Michael said that “Most who believe in some form of Transubstanitation will defend this view by taking a very literal interpretation of Christ’s words during the Lord’s Supper:

Matthew 26:26-28 “While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.”

“This is my body.” These are the word that Luther etched onto the table in his famous meeting with Zwingli.

Indeed, it was these words that were used by the Council of Trent as a primary justification for a belief in Transubstantiation: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Council of Trent [1551]: DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor 11:24 ff. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1376).”

The brief questions Michael had I also had and found that my answers denied that I could any longer believe in the teaching of transubstantiation. I at one time did believe and now have for those who believe that Christ’s words must be taken literally are these same questions followed by my answer now as a…

I am a Presbyterian. I love the sacrament of the Lords Supper but the roman church teaching makes a balsphemy of it.

Dr. Loraine Boettner, in his classic book “Roman Catholicism”, and referring to the rc teaching of trnsubstantiation asks the reader to “Notice that throughout these verses occurs the statement ‘once for all’, which has in it the idea of completeness, or finality, and which precludes repetition. Christ’s work on the cross was perfect and decisive. It constituted one historic event, which need never be repeated, and which in fact cannot be repeated. The language is perfectly clear: ‘He offered one sacrifice for sins for ever’ (10:12). Paul says that ‘Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more’ (Romans 6:9); and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says that ‘By one offering he had perfected for ever them that are sanctified’ (10:14)…We are told that Christ has sat down as token that His work is finished.

I am a Presbyterian Protestant and was at one time a roman catholic. I now no longer believe that Christ descends from His Father in heavento be a further sacrifice upon Rome’s altars or on any other; for such sacrifice there is no need…. Thank God that we Protestants can look back to what our Lord did on Calvary and know that He completed the sacrifice for sins once for all, and that our salvation is not dependent on the decree of any priest or church. Any pretense at a continuous offering for sin is worse than vain, for it is a denial of the efficacy of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for all that place their faith in Him alone.

In faith,
Dudley

Given that Christ can multiply bread and fish to feed thousands, stop a storm, drive demons out of people, heal the sick, make wine out of water, and many others, then why would a Christian not believe that he can change an ordinary bread and wine into his very own body and blood, irrelevant of his time of death on the cross?

Why not believe this? Because the Last Supper’s context as a Passover Seder, as well as what Jesus did and said re: the bread and wine on that occasion (assuming we can determine this – Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11 don’t agree with each other on this), don’t support Him wanting the church and Christians to believe that such a change was or should be expected to happen.

Sure, He can do it. But the idea that Christians are supposed to believe that this is what happens to the bread and wine of communion is not supported by what the Scriptures teach that Jesus said and did.

Given that Christ can multiply bread and fish to feed thousands, stop a storm, drive demons out of people, heal the sick, make wine out of water, and many others, then why would a Christian not believe that he can change an ordinary bread and wine into his very own body and blood, irrelevant of his time of death on the cross?

Can’t someone notice the development of how “christians” diversified in NOT believing in the reality of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.

The Passover is a perpetual ordinance and perfected in the Calvary with Christ as the Lamb. Hence, the “remembrance” is a participation of the Passover in the New Creation and Covenant with Christ as the Covenant and Lamb at the same time. The OT will give us an idea why there is such thing as “Covenant Theology.”

Last comment: The development of the paragraph seems to hint as if the Catholic Church (not just “Roman” or Western Rite) agreed with Luther and Zwingli. Before them, the Church Doctors and Church Ancient Fathers have believed and passed on that belief (Traditio) to be true and taught by Christ, believed by the Apostles.