***Disrespecting the Catholic Doctrine of the Real Presence by stating “ I adore God, not a piece of bread, I trust Jesus to save me, not a piece of bread “ is what I’m talking about.***
That is no disrespect. It is a plain statement of Protestant theology. It is disagreement, to be sure.
Tell me you consider my views heretical and it doesn't bother me. But tell me that I have no business posting my views and I ask when did this become a Catholic Forum?
If you are offended by statements that are not congruent with Catholic dogma, then why not post on a Catholics only forum?
Yes, the disagreement is in the theology. That isn't the problem. The offense is in the way that disagreement is stated. We've all done it from time to time, on all sides.
I, and many others don’t view it that way.
It is a plain statement of Protestant theology.
No it’s not. The added comment of “not a piece of bread” is a disrespect, not a disagreement, of Catholic doctrine.
It is disagreement, to be sure.
Agreed.
But tell me that I have no business posting my views and I ask when did this become a Catholic Forum?
Post all the views you want. All I’m saying is we all need to respect opposing views.
If you are offended by statements that are not congruent with Catholic dogma, then why not post on a Catholics only forum?
I am not offended by the fact that many don’t agree the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Good grief man, we’ve got a bunch of Catholic’s that feel the same way. Just like you get your panties in a wad if someone makes a disparaging comment against Calvin, Catholics react the same way when the Eucharist is disrespected.
Among Anglicans the matter of the Real Presence is, naturally, rather hard to nail down. The Articles are adamant in the reality of it, but aside from an affirmation of a "spiritual" nature and a rejection of transubstantiation, interpretation is fairly open. Some of the Carolina Divines and the Anglo-Catholics have a very high Eucharistic doctrine, which at times approaches the Roman or Lutheran view. And then amongst the Low Church folks, one might find an almost Zwinglian bare-bones symbolism.
Even Calvin had a remarkably high view of the Eucharist, endorsing a Real Presence, although the exact nature of his views is definitely a matter of debate. He disagreed quite admantly with Luther- but also with Zwingli. At any rate, Zwingli's novel position was the minority among the Reformers. His view has definitely proven the winner in modern Protestantism, if defined by the number of adherents or semi-adherents.
Heck, even the originial Baptist confessions on Communion have sacramental-sounding language, with talk of grace being connected to the Eucharist, and even of partaking of Christ in some sense. By contrast, few evangelicals today make any connection between the Eucharist and God's action. It is merely a memorial meal in which the action is entirely one of exercising faith via a didactic rite.
Probably thought he was......