Regarding post 222, we believe that Jesus instituted the Eucharist because of His words in scripture. Then the Apostles words in scripture, and the Apostles teachings outside of scripture, which they passed down to their disciples.
There are many quotes by the Apostles outside of scripture, quotes by the disciples of the Apostles, and quotes to the present day.
Even Martin Luther, until he completely split with the Church, believed in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I believe that part of the problem is protestants "leap frog" as Stephen Ray says, from the Apostles to the reformation, and completely ignore 1500 years of Christian history and teaching.
I think you owe it to yourself to read this history and teaching on your own, I mean, if Christs words are literal, alot of people are missing out on the Body of Christ, a tremendous gift.
Regarding catholics who are unchanged by Holy Communion or come out of Mass and are vile, well, I can only pray that the grace of God will open their eyes. Grace works in all of us differently. We will all be accountable for the words we use, catholic or protestant.
I did not mean to be confrontive on this. I think most Catholics have a rather abstract view of Eucharist.They pay lip service to the "real presence" of Christ in the wafer...and may even go to communion with the most pious of intents..but as soon as Mass is over,so is their encounter with the living God. It is back to " real life"
I have come out of protestant services where people have heard the word of God preached without communion and seen more reverence than from people that believe the actual presence of God in in their body..physically indwelling them.(these are generalities here Capt...as we know many devote Catholics and irreverent protestants).
The belief in Eucharist is often the only thing that keeps many people Catholic..they disagree with much of the doctrine..would never say a rosery or light a candle..they get their spiritual growth brom bible studies....but they are unwilling to leave the Eucharist.
Capt..personally I think it is a misreading of scripture and superstition..and I dont think you and I will ever agree on it.
I grew up Catholic,I understand the attraction of Eucharist...I no longer believe in transubstantiation.
WHOA!!! Where did you ever get the idea that Luther stopped believing in "the presence of Christ in the Eucharist"? He never did! In fact, I would even rephrase what you say in a stronger way that can leave no doubt about what is meant by "the presence of Christ": "What is the Sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . ." And that's a quote from Luther's Small Catechism!
There is hardly anything stronger or clearer in all of Luther's theology than his teaching on the Sacrament of Our Lord's Body and Blood, particularly against the Zwinglian/Reformed representational view--and this was after what you call his "split" from Rome. (Actually, Luther didn't "split" from the Church. It was Rome that had been "splitting" from the catholic faith for centuries, and it was the Pope who kicked out Luther in 1520.) Luther's most extensive writing on the real presence of Christ's true body and blood in the Sacrament came in the mid-to-late 1520s.
I believe that part of the problem is protestants "leap frog" as Stephen Ray says, from the Apostles to the reformation, and completely ignore 1500 years of Christian history and teaching.
Lutherans--I mean, authentic, confessional Lutherans--are not "protestants" in that regard. We don't play leapfrog. In fact, if you read our confessions (The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church), we contend we are teaching nothing new but rather what has always been taught in the church catholic. We frequently cite the Fathers who taught the same thing.
The Rev. Charles Henrickson
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod