When someone understands the truth of their salvation in Christ, the person begins to give a darn about what Jesus says. They begin to give a darn about what God says in His Word.

As Christians, we don't "enforce" our "code" the way that Islam does. We seek to make genuine converts by executing the great commission.

A genuine Christian acts "right" and is obedient to God and to worldly authorities out of love for their savior characterized by respect and gratitude.

I suppose one could therefore measure the effectiveness of Protestantism vs Catholicism vs Orthodoxy vs etc in the context of fostering a "well behaved" society by their ability to provoke genuine conversions.

It's also worth mentioning that a society full of well behaved people who won't inherit the Kingdom of God is of no eternal value, obviously.

I don't think it's logical to assign value to a denomination or sect that is successful in imposing Christian values on society. It is only logical to assign value to proper conversions as a whole. If one denomination happens to have a majority in regards to conversions, then I suppose they may have "bragging rights" if they want them.

I would argue that denominational arguments are for trivial “bragging rights” between protestants. But the debate between the Catholic Church and the 40,000 denominations of protestant Christianity are anything but trivial. They are likely an argument of salvation itself.

Take only into consideration the issue of the Eucharist, or Holy Communion. The Catholic position is that the Eucharistic species, bread and wine, are transubstantiated into the actual Body and Blood or Jesus Christ. Not representative of. Not infused with. The actual, physical, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are all fully present in the Eucharist. Wow.

As a fallen-away Catholic, this was absurd to me; as I am sure it is to most protestants.

But it really becomes the linchpin of Christianity.

Either Catholics are guilty of the most absurd and grotesque form of idolatry ever imposed on man;
Or they are right.

If the Catholic stance on the Eucharist is correct, then every protestant is rejecting Christ and even mocking Christ in many cases.

If the Catholic stance is wrong, every Christian for the first 1500 years of the Church got it wrong. Every Catholic is doomed to hell for absurd idolatry.

It's either or and nothing in-between. It's similar to the argument that people make when they say Jesus was just a good guy. Not divine, not Lord, just a good guy with a great message. That doesn't work. He was either a liar and lunatic or He was Lord. I obviously believe He was/is the Lord or Lord's and King of Kings, but there is no middle ground in that argument, just like there is no middle ground in the Eucharist.

So I implore people who don't believe in the Eucharist to look at the hundreds of Bible verses that support the Catholic position, both in the New and Old Testaments.

I also implore you to look at the writings and teachings of the early Church fathers, which are all explicitly Catholic in there beliefs.

I urge you to look at the physical evidence. The Eucharistic Miracles like that of Lanciano, Italy. Science cannot explain them. Look at the blood type evidence of dozens of Eucharistic Miracles, some from over 1000 years ago. The blood types all match. The blood types match the infamous Shroud of Turin. Medieval forgers had the foresight to make sure their forgeries all had the same blood type (even though that science didn't come around until 1900)?

Most of all, I ask that you pray about it. Honestly and earnestly. Go to a Catholic Church when nobody is around. 364 days a year, the Eucharist is present in the Tabernacle. Pray for answers. Pray for clarity. Pray for the truth to come to you."Those who seek me will find me.”

So yeah, I can see how denominational arguments between protestants could seem trivial. But there are BIG differences between Catholics and protestants with BIG implications. The truth in those matters should be discussed fervently so that we may all know, love, and serve God in the way that He wants us to.

quote:

But it really becomes the linchpin of Christianity.

Either Catholics are guilty of the most absurd and grotesque form of idolatry ever imposed on man;
Or they are right.

If the Catholic stance on the Eucharist is correct, then every protestant is rejecting Christ and even mocking Christ in many cases.

If the Catholic stance is wrong, every Christian for the first 1500 years of the Church got it wrong. Every Catholic is doomed to hell for absurd idolatry.

Emphasis mine. I hope that's not what you think that people who don't attend a Catholic church think. I hope that's not what Catholics are taught that people who don't attend a Catholic church think.

I don't think the eucharist is a "matter of salvation". The Protestant view should not be that a Catholic is condemned because of Eucharistic participation. The Catholic view should not be that a Protestant is condemned because of a lack of participation. The communion tradition is evidenced in scripture, and all Christians participate in some way or other as a result. To declare it "the linchpin of Christianity" may be fair in a way; but certainly not the linchpin of salvation.

Paragraph 782 of the CCC states the following:

One becomes a member of the People of God not by a physical birth, but by being "born anew," a birth "of water and the spirit," that is, by faith in Christ and Baptism...

...The destiny of the People of God is the Kingdom of God which has been begun by God himself on earth and which must be further extended until it has been brought to perfection by him at the end of time.

The Judgement Seat of Christ is where consequences of Eucharistic participation (or lack thereof) will be realized.

Regarding the "absurd idolatry" potential of the Eucharist if Catholics are "wrong" about it: If they're "wrong", wouldn't that imply a misunderstanding and therefore they wouldn't actually be guilty of a Mortal Sin? Never mind the fact that, if you put your faith in Christ as your savior, he forgives you.

You'll always find me a willing participant in discussions that have potential to reconcile Catholic and Protestant differences. As I've said before, I was raised Catholic, my mom's a Catholic (but was absent from the church for fifteen years until I told her to get her butt back in there), and my uncle has been a Catholic priest for decades (and we talk to each other without quarrelling). I wasn't convicted of my sin, realizing my need for Christ, until I started to attend an Evangelical Christian church.

He is Lord and I live for Him now, relying on Him to do good through me in this world, in furtherance of His Kingdom, as a worker in His harvest.

The Judgement Seat of Christ is for me what purgatory is for many: a place where believers' actions (or lack thereof) on earth have consequences before they enter paradise. The bible doesn't tell us the specific character of the Judgment Seat experience. I imagine it has the potential to be pretty awful.

But, like purgatory, it's not a place (or moment) for nonbelievers.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

But it really becomes the linchpin of Christianity.

Either Catholics are guilty of the most absurd and grotesque form of idolatry ever imposed on man;
Or they are right.

If the Catholic stance on the Eucharist is correct, then every protestant is rejecting Christ and even mocking Christ in many cases.

If the Catholic stance is wrong, every Christian for the first 1500 years of the Church got it wrong. Every Catholic is doomed to hell for absurd idolatry.

Emphasis mine. I hope that's not what you think that people who don't attend a Catholic church think. I hope that's not what Catholics are taught that people who don't attend a Catholic church think.

I don't think the eucharist is a "matter of salvation". The Protestant view should not be that a Catholic is condemned because of Eucharistic participation. The Catholic view should not be that a Protestant is condemned because of a lack of participation. The communion tradition is evidenced in scripture, and all Christians participate in some way or other as a result. To declare it "the linchpin of Christianity" may be fair in a way; but certainly not the linchpin of salvation.

Paragraph 782 of the CCC states the following:

One becomes a member of the People of God not by a physical birth, but by being "born anew," a birth "of water and the spirit," that is, by faith in Christ and Baptism...

...The destiny of the People of God is the Kingdom of God which has been begun by God himself on earth and which must be further extended until it has been brought to perfection by him at the end of time.

The Judgement Seat of Christ is where consequences of Eucharistic participation (or lack thereof) will be realized.

Regarding the "absurd idolatry" potential of the Eucharist if Catholics are "wrong" about it: If they're "wrong", wouldn't that imply a misunderstanding and therefore they wouldn't actually be guilty of a Mortal Sin? Never mind the fact that, if you put your faith in Christ as your savior, he forgives you.

You'll always find me a willing participant in discussions that have potential to reconcile Catholic and Protestant differences. As I've said before, I was raised Catholic, my mom's a Catholic (but was absent from the church for fifteen years until I told her to get her butt back in there), and my uncle has been a Catholic priest for decades (and we talk to each other without quarrelling). I wasn't convicted of my sin, realizing my need for Christ, until I started to attend an Evangelical Christian church.

He is Lord and I live for Him now, relying on Him to do good through me in this world, in furtherance of His Kingdom, as a worker in His harvest.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, sincerely. Perhaps you are right, and one would hope that the mercy of God would be poured out upon those who fall on error. However, it seems kind of ambiguous, which isn't a trait I would assign to God. It's easy to say that one could mock Jesus' body or idolize a piece of bread, but still enter the kingdom as a good and faithful servant.

I think of the narrow path, the eye of the needle, and other imagery that Christ uses throughout the Gospel and struggle to think that winging it or trying to figure it all out myself as being sufficient. The Bread of Life discourse, the Last Supper, and all of the other imagery throughout the entire Bible are straightforward, but our own pride often make them hard sayings. Just like the multitudes that walked away from Christ in John 6, I see that it would be hard to reject the teaching. Christ didn't let them walk away and tell those who remained that they'd still be okay on judgement day.

And I doubt those that remained immediately, from that moment onward, adopted the literal flesh and blood transubstantiation attitude. They merely trusted Christ. Those that walked away didn't.

I don't take any of this lightly. I don't mock the Eucharist, and I think it'd be unwise to do so. However, if someone, for a lack of understanding, does mock the Eucharist, but believes the truth of Christ, their mockery wouldn't condemn them to a Christless eternity. Despite the scriptural basis for the Eucharist, among other things, there is the universally agreed-upon fundamental basis for salvation in Christ by way of belief/faith/trust.

I mention this because of your mention of the narrow path: I have recently been listening to a very good sermon, the basis of which is the Matthew 7 "strait gate" scripture. The message is one that illustrates the fact that, if we've understood and accepted the truth of Christ as our redeemer, and are therefore going to pass through that strait gate, you will find yourself at odds with the world. Why? Because you're on that narrow way while the rest of the world isn't.

Also, consider Matthew 28:18. Christ issues more than a few very significant and clear directives. We tend to pick and choose which ones we get excited about. Someone who is passionate about adherence to the Eucharist may fall short on evangelism, while someone who can't pass someone on the sidewalk without telling them about Christ has never considered the potential importance of the communion tradition in any of its forms. Is either a "good and faithful servant"? Neither? Both? I'd say both, so long as they trust in Christ as their only means of reconciliation with a Holy God.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
I would argue that denominational arguments are for trivial “bragging rights” between protestants. But the debate between the Catholic Church and the 40,000 denominations of protestant Christianity are anything but trivial. They are likely an argument of salvation itself.

Take only into consideration the issue of the Eucharist, or Holy Communion. The Catholic position is that the Eucharistic species, bread and wine, are transubstantiated into the actual Body and Blood or Jesus Christ. Not representative of. Not infused with. The actual, physical, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are all fully present in the Eucharist. Wow.

As a fallen-away Catholic, this was absurd to me; as I am sure it is to most protestants.

But it really becomes the linchpin of Christianity.

Either Catholics are guilty of the most absurd and grotesque form of idolatry ever imposed on man;
Or they are right.

If the Catholic stance on the Eucharist is correct, then every protestant is rejecting Christ and even mocking Christ in many cases.

If the Catholic stance is wrong, every Christian for the first 1500 years of the Church got it wrong. Every Catholic is doomed to hell for absurd idolatry.

It's either or and nothing in-between.

Respectfully, you're presenting a false dichotomy based on an unsubstantiated presumption that the transubstantiation doctrine is "the linchpin of Christianity." What is the basis of your presumption?

I go with the Apostle Paul who said in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, " Now I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the gospel which I preached to you, which you also are received, in which you also stan, by which you also are saved, if you hold firmly to the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I handed down to you as of first importance that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raided on the third day according to the Scriptures.

In 1 Corinthians 15:14, Paul hammers the point that the resurrection is the linchpin of Christianity, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain." "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:16-19).

Paul argues that Christianity doesn't rise or fall based on whether the bread and wine actually turns into the body and blood of Jesus; Christianity rises or falls based on whether Jesus died and rose from the dead.

Besides, the doctrine of communion isn't an either or. Roman Catholics are not the only people who believe in transubstantiation; Eastern Orthodox Churches also believe in the real, substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. Lutherans (you know, the guy who started the protestant movement) teach that Christ's true Body and Blood are really present in, with, and under the bread and wine. The elements do not cease to be bread and wine, but Christ is genuinely present. This is not symbolic and not transubstantiation. Lutherans are not "mocking Christ" in their own understanding; they believe they are receiving the real Christ.

Not all protestants view communion as symbolic but that Christ is truly present.

My argument is that 1) you have no substantiation that transubstantiation is "the linchpin of Christianity." I cited Paul and what he wrote as to what Christians' faith rest upon -- the death and resurrection of Jesus. Where's your support that transubstantiation is the linchpin of Christianity?

2) That Christians don't just believe that either/or position on communion but, rather, also a range of positions. Where do you draw the line then?

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
I would argue that denominational arguments are for trivial “bragging rights” between protestants. But the debate between the Catholic Church and the 40,000 denominations of protestant Christianity are anything but trivial. They are likely an argument of salvation itself.

Take only into consideration the issue of the Eucharist, or Holy Communion. The Catholic position is that the Eucharistic species, bread and wine, are transubstantiated into the actual Body and Blood or Jesus Christ. Not representative of. Not infused with. The actual, physical, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are all fully present in the Eucharist. Wow.

As a fallen-away Catholic, this was absurd to me; as I am sure it is to most protestants.

But it really becomes the linchpin of Christianity.

Either Catholics are guilty of the most absurd and grotesque form of idolatry ever imposed on man;
Or they are right.

If the Catholic stance on the Eucharist is correct, then every protestant is rejecting Christ and even mocking Christ in many cases.

If the Catholic stance is wrong, every Christian for the first 1500 years of the Church got it wrong. Every Catholic is doomed to hell for absurd idolatry.

It's either or and nothing in-between.

Respectfully, you're presenting a false dichotomy based on an unsubstantiated presumption that the transubstantiation doctrine is "the linchpin of Christianity." What is the basis of your presumption?

I go with the Apostle Paul who said in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, " Now I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the gospel which I preached to you, which you also are received, in which you also stan, by which you also are saved, if you hold firmly to the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I handed down to you as of first importance that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raided on the third day according to the Scriptures.

In 1 Corinthians 15:14, Paul hammers the point that the resurrection is the linchpin of Christianity, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain." "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:16-19).

Paul argues that Christianity doesn't rise or fall based on whether the bread and wine actually turns into the body and blood of Jesus; Christianity rises or falls based on whether Jesus died and rose from the dead.

Besides, the doctrine of communion isn't an either or. Roman Catholics are not the only people who believe in transubstantiation; Eastern Orthodox Churches also believe in the real, substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. Lutherans (you know, the guy who started the protestant movement) teach that Christ's true Body and Blood are really present in, with, and under the bread and wine. The elements do not cease to be bread and wine, but Christ is genuinely present. This is not symbolic and not transubstantiation. Lutherans are not "mocking Christ" in their own understanding; they believe they are receiving the real Christ.

Not all protestants view communion as symbolic but that Christ is truly present.

My argument is that 1) you have no substantiation that transubstantiation is "the linchpin of Christianity." I cited Paul and what he wrote as to what Christians' faith rest upon -- the death and resurrection of Jesus. Where's your support that transubstantiation is the linchpin of Christianity?

2) That Christians don't just believe that either/or position on communion but, rather, also a range of positions. Where do you draw the line then?

I think you are twisting what I said a little. The context is that among Christians, the Eucharist is the linchpin. There aren't any real Christians that deny His resurrection. The same could be said for the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the trinity, etc. The discussion was about denominations and doctrines, not in whether or not Christ is who He said He was or did what we believe He did.

So I stand by my point that among Christians the most important issue is the Eucharist.

As to your second point, I draw the line at first, what is true. Truth supported by tradition, scripture, outside sources, biblical context, and physical evidence. The Catholic position checks every single one of those boxes. The people who dont believe in the real and full presence of Christ in the Eucharist only have one thing to hang their hats on- Their personal feelings or beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

Take only into consideration the issue of the Eucharist, or Holy Communion. The Catholic position is that the Eucharistic species, bread and wine, are transubstantiated into the actual Body and Blood or Jesus Christ. Not representative of. Not infused with. The actual, physical, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are all fully present in the Eucharist. Wow.


But it really becomes the linchpin of Christianity.

Either Catholics are guilty of the most absurd and grotesque form of idolatry ever imposed on man;
Or they are right.

If the Catholic stance on the Eucharist is correct, then every protestant is rejecting Christ and even mocking Christ in many cases.

If the Catholic stance is wrong, every Christian for the first 1500 years of the Church got it wrong. Every Catholic is doomed to hell for absurd idolatry.

It's either or and nothing in-between.

Respectfully, you're presenting a false dichotomy based on an unsubstantiated presumption that the transubstantiation doctrine is "the linchpin of Christianity." What is the basis of your presumption?

I go with the Apostle Paul who said in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, " Now I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the gospel which I preached to you, which you also are received, in which you also stan, by which you also are saved, if you hold firmly to the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I handed down to you as of first importance that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raided on the third day according to the Scriptures.

In 1 Corinthians 15:14, Paul hammers the point that the resurrection is the linchpin of Christianity, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain." "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:16-19).

Paul argues that Christianity doesn't rise or fall based on whether the bread and wine actually turns into the body and blood of Jesus; Christianity rises or falls based on whether Jesus died and rose from the dead.

...

My argument is that 1) you have no substantiation that transubstantiation is "the linchpin of Christianity." I cited Paul and what he wrote as to what Christians' faith rest upon -- the death and resurrection of Jesus. Where's your support that transubstantiation is the linchpin of Christianity?

I think you are twisting what I said a little. The context is that among Christians, the Eucharist is the linchpin. There aren't any real Christians that deny His resurrection. The same could be said for the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the trinity, etc. The discussion was about denominations and doctrines, not in whether or not Christ is who He said He was or did what we believe He did.

So I stand by my point that among Christians the most important issue is the Eucharist.

As to your second point, I draw the line at first, what is true. Truth supported by tradition, scripture, outside sources, biblical context, and physical evidence. The Catholic position checks every single one of those boxes. The people who dont believe in the real and full presence of Christ in the Eucharist only have one thing to hang their hats on- Their personal feelings or beliefs.

You missed the biblical context when you say "The context is that among Christians, the Eucharist is the linchpin." And here is my argument that shows you missed the biblical context:

1) 1 Corinthians was written by Paul to Christians, do you agree? The evidence is 1 Corinthians 1:1-1: "Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, to the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,...."

These weren't Christians in name only, the people Paul was writing to have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints even!

2) And Paul told these Christians in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that the first importance he handed to these Christians was what he also received -- that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He was raised on the third day.

3) And why did Paul thought it was important to reiterate this teaching as of first importance? Because some of those Christians to whom he was writing did not believe in the resurrection of the dead as Paul says so in 1 Corinthians 15:12: "Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" These people didn't believe the dead was resurrected and therefore, Christ couldn't have been resurrected either. And these were Christians in the church in Corinth.

So, yes, in the context of among Christians, the death and resurrection of Jesus is of first importance / linchpin, not the Eucharist.

So, again, where's the biblical basis for your contention that transubstantiation is the linchpin of Christianity?

You should try to get invited to a Messianic Passover Seder. The Passover meal which was the last meal the Israelites ate that involved killing the Passover lamb at twilight was commanded by God in Exodus 12:14 "Now this day shall be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations your are to celebrate is as a permanent ordinance."

In Luke 22, it was the Passover meal that Jesus ate with His disciples that became what Christians know as the Last Supper. Luke 22:8 "And so Jesus sent Peter and Joh, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it." In Luke 22:15, Jesus said, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer..." Verses 19-20, "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood."

That's the traditional and biblical context of the Last Supper. Jesus was celebrating with His disciples the Passover which was a memorial of the Passover lamb that was killed and eaten on the night God freed the Israelites from slavery. The subsequent Passover lambs that were eaten after that first Passover did not become the first Passover lamb. It was a memorial, an act of remembrance. Jesus then took the two elements of the Passover meal and gave new meaning to them -an act of remembrance when Jesus became our Passover Lamb to free us from sin and death.

Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me." He didn't say, "Do this so you can ingest my body." Christians don't have to periodically ingest the body of Christ because Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them just as Jesus promised in John 14:16-17 "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." The Holy Spirit started dwelling in believers on Pentecost (Acts 2).

That argument isn't based on my feelings. That argument is based on the historical, biblical, and traditional context of the Last Supper. You're welcome to lay out your reasoning on which you're hanging your hat on.

As a Lutheran, Rey HRH, you posted the Scripture, and missed it.

Christ said,”This is my Body…This is my Blood.”

(Not all Protestants reject the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.)

I do not understand why some Scripture based denominations reject that part of it/or why Baptists, who tend to be very Scriptural, reject dancing and wine.

Now, I’m not sure that it’s a lynchpin… but it does seem like the churches without it have more temptation to drift into heresy - well, Rome aside.

Rome’s entire premise confuses everyone outside of the Roman church.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Now, I’m not sure that it’s a lynchpin… but it does seem like the churches without it have more temptation to drift into heresy - well, Rome aside.

Rome’s entire premise confuses everyone outside of the Roman church.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it seems to be a slam on Catholicism.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
As a Lutheran, Rey HRH, you posted the Scripture, and missed it.

Christ said,”This is my Body…This is my Blood.”

(Not all Protestants reject the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.)

I do not understand why some Scripture based denominations reject that part of it/or why Baptists, who tend to be very Scriptural, reject dancing and wine.

Christ said "I am the door" and "I am the bread that came down from heaven"

As a protestant I recognize metaphor and symbolism in scripture and I use context to interpret scripture. The bread was symbolic of His body that would be broken and the wine was symbolic of His blood that was shed for the sins of many.

Does the Eucharist become properly transubstantiated as a result of the priest's execution of the sacrament?

If transubstantiation is real, can it be experienced outside the Catholic church?

If the Catholic priest executing the sacrament is not a believer, or not in a state of grace, does it "take"?

What does a Protestant "miss out" on by not partaking of the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist?

This article does not directly answer your specific questions, but I think it's worth reading. There's a lot of history of the doctrine and the church in the article as well which I have not posted here. Give it a read.

Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation is unique. It is not a simple conversion. It is a substantial conversion. One thing is substantially or essentially converted into another thing. There is no question here of a merely accidental conversion, like water into steam. Nor is it something like the metamorphosis of insects or the transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor. There is no other change exactly like transubstantiation. In transubstantiation only the substance is converted into another substance, while the accidents remain the same. At Cana substance was changed into substance, but the accidents of water were changed also into the accidents of wine.

The doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in the doctrine of transubstantiation, but the doctrine of transubstantiation is not necessarily contained in the Real Presence. Christ could become really present without transubstantiation taking place, but we know that this is not what happened because of Christ’s own words at the Last Supper. He did not say, “This bread is my body,” but simply, “This is my body.” Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ. The word “this” indicated the whole of what Christ held in his hand. His words were so phrased as to indicate that the subject of the sentence, “this,” and the predicate, “my body,” are identical. As soon as the sentence was complete, the substance of the bread was no longer present. Christ’s body was present under the outward appearances of bread. The words of institution at the Last Supper were at the same time the words of transubstantiation. If Christ had wished the bread to be a kind of sacramental receptacle of his body, he would surely have used other words, for example, “This bread is my body” or “This contains my body.”

The revealed doctrine expressed by the term transubstantiation is in no way conditioned by the scholastic system of philosophy. Any philosophy that distinguishes adequately between the appearances of a thing and the thing itself may be harmonized with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Right thinking demands that one makes a distinction between what a thing is and what it has. That is part of ordinary common speaking. we say, for example, that this is iron, but it maybe cold, hot, black, red, white, solid, liquid, or vapor. The qualities, actions, and reactions do not exist in themselves; they are in something. We call that something the substance. It makes a thing what it is. When we talk about transubstantiation we are using the word substance in that sense. It is unfair for people who do not want to accept this doctrine to invent their own definition of substance and then to tell us we are wrong.

All that substance sustains, the things which inhere in it, we call by the technical name of accidents. We cannot touch, see, taste, feel, measure, analyze, smell, or otherwise directly experience substance. Only by knowing the accidents do we know it. So we sometimes call the accidents the appearances.

At Mass the priest does exactly what Christ told him to do at the Last Supper. He does not say, “This is Christ’s body,” but “This is my body.” These words produce the whole substance of Christ’s body. In the same way the words of consecration produce the whole substance of Christ’s blood. They are Christ’s body and blood, as they are now living in heaven. There, in heaven, his body and blood are united with his soul and Godhead. The accidents or appearances of his human body are in heaven too. They are present, therefore, in the Holy Eucharist. For want of a better term we speak of them as following the substance. By the words of consecration the substance is immediately and directly produced. The personal accidents of Christ, his appearances, are there by what the theologians call “natural concomitance.”

https://www.catholic.com/magaz...iation-for-beginners

I have zero issue acknowledging the possible supernatural aspects of transubstantiation. The same way I acknowledge the truth of the supernatural power of the Word, prayer, worship, etc.

That is to say I don't disagree with the possibility of transubstantiation of the Eucharist being a reality.

Thank you for the article, chellim1.

I hope others can perhaps answer my more specific questions.

I'll do a targeted search in the Catechism as well, to see if it can shed any light on the same questions.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
As a Lutheran, Rey HRH, you posted the Scripture, and missed it.

Christ said,”This is my Body…This is my Blood.”

(Not all Protestants reject the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.)

I do not understand why some Scripture based denominations reject that part of it/or why Baptists, who tend to be very Scriptural, reject dancing and wine.

I think you're missing what is the point of contention here; the point of contention is whether transubstantiation is the linchpin of Christianity.

You may not have read my original response in which I said the following:

quote:

Besides, the doctrine of communion isn't an either or. Roman Catholics are not the only people who believe in transubstantiation; Eastern Orthodox Churches also believe in the real, substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. Lutherans (you know, the guy who started the protestant movement) teach that Christ's true Body and Blood are really present in, with, and under the bread and wine. The elements do not cease to be bread and wine, but Christ is genuinely present. This is not symbolic and not transubstantiation. Lutherans are not "mocking Christ" in their own understanding; they believe they are receiving the real Christ.

Clearly, I pointed out that Christian beliefs around Communion form a range or spectrum of doctrines; it is not however the either / or asserted by Cous2492.

Or are you saying transubstantiation is the "linchpin" of Christianity? That if you don't believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation that you are "rejecting Christ and even mocking Him in many cases?"

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

If the Catholic stance on the Eucharist is correct, then every protestant is rejecting Christ and even mocking Christ in many cases.

If the Catholic stance is wrong, every Christian for the first 1500 years of the Church got it wrong. Every Catholic is doomed to hell for absurd idolatry.

It's either or and nothing in-between.

The answers to my questions, as given by internet query results, are below. I'll get to it someday, but the content in the CCC concerning the Eucharist and transubstantiation is extensive, and there's no way I was going to mine those answers anytime soon. It should be noted that all the answers were preceded by something like "In Catholic theology...". I find it interesting that the transubstantiated Eucharist seemingly can't transcend Catholicism.

Does the Eucharist become properly transubstantiated as a result of the priest's execution of the sacrament? YES

If transubstantiation is real, can it be experienced outside the Catholic church? NO

If the Catholic priest executing the sacrament is not a believer, or not in a state of grace, does it "take"? YES

What does a Protestant "miss out" on by not partaking of the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist? According to Catholic theology... A LOT (but certainly not salvation and renewed eternal fellowship with God)

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I find it interesting that the transubstantiated Eucharist seemingly can't transcend Catholicism.

Because it can only be done by an ordained priest acting in persona Christi, and nonCatholics are not allowed to take communion during Mass (though I'm certain many do).

That reinvigorates a previous question of mine, concerning the Eucharist: Do those non-Catholics get a sneaky Eucharistic experience in those cases? Are the benefits imparted? I had asked earlier in the context of a Catholic outside a state of grace. We know non-Catholics and Catholics not in a state of grace are "not supposed to" receive the Eucharist. If they do, is it merely bread and wine to them, or have they received the body and blood. If they have, do they benefit from it, or is it's relational power void because of their condition?