Answers to protestants

[MBd]

What’s the proper response to a protestant who tells you that the Holy Eucharist isn’t the REAL body,blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and that this or any other sacrifice isn’t necesary because Jesus already died for us and his redemption on the cross is enough?

Thanks and God bless you

 

[super_squirrel]

Here is a link to several tracts that will provide a wealth of information. You will see the sections about the Eucharist in the middle:

catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

 

[zdon011]

What’s the proper response to a protestant who tells you that the Holy Eucharist isn’t the REAL body,blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and that this or any other sacrifice isn’t necesary because Jesus already died for us and his redemption on the cross is enough?

Thanks and God bless you

1. Ask him/her to read Matthew 26:26-28, or Mark 14:22-24, or Luke 22:19-20.
2. Ask him/her if Our Lord is lying or confusing his Apostles. The plain meaning of the words, in translation and the original Greek, is that Jesus is literally equating the bread and wine to his body and blood. He does not say ‘This represents my body/blood’, which would be different in the original Greek.
3. Ask him/her what Jesus means when he equates the wine to the covenant of his blood, shed for our sins.
   It obviously means his sacrifice on the cross. He implies that this sacrifice was already being performed, although from our limited, linear human view of time, he had not yet suffered or been crucified. By commanding the Apostles to ‘Do this’, he implies that that sacrifice of his Passion and Crucifixion is to be eternally experienced, although he completed it on the Cross (‘It is finished’).

The Twelve were the only ones present at the Last Supper (Mat. 26:20), and from Apostolic times only Apostles, and Bishops and Priests ordained by them, have been allowed to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist. In the original Greek, the words ‘Do this’ carry the sense of ‘Offer sacrifice’. Here are two very helpful links:

catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp

therealpresence.org/eucharst/link/e-litur.html

Hope that helped,
Michael

 

[paperbackwinter]

I guess I don’t think that this requires much thought. Do they believe in the story of Adam and Eve? Do they believe in the story of Noah? Do they believe in the incarnation of our Lord according to the story of the Nativity? Why would 99.99% of the Bible be true only to have the two phrases, “This is my Body…”, and “This is my Blood” not literal? God suddenly decided that symbolism is important?

A fundamentalist can believe that God put dinosaur bones in the Earth to confuse people, but to believe in transubstantiation is a stretch?

Not believing in the Real Presence is simply not an option.

 

[zdon011]

I guess I don’t think that this requires much thought. Do they believe in the story of Adam and Eve? Do they believe in the story of Noah? Do they believe in the incarnation of our Lord according to the story of the Nativity? Why would 99.99% of the Bible be true only to have the two phrases, “This is my Body…”, and “This is my Blood” not literal? God suddenly decided that symbolism is important?

A fundamentalist can believe that God put dinosaur bones in the Earth to confuse people, but to believe in transubstantiation is a stretch?

Not believing in the Real Presence is simply not an option.

:clapping:
I know I’ve been guilty of claiming to be a’Bible-believer’, and yet been selective in choosing what bits of the Bible to believe; or even believing in stuff which isn’t even in the Bible, like ‘Sola Scriptura’ (which is ironic)!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

What’s the proper response to a protestant who tells you that the Holy Eucharist isn’t the REAL body,blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and that this or any other sacrifice isn’t necesary because Jesus already died for us and his redemption on the cross is enough?

Thanks and God bless you

You could answer that he does not understand the Sacrificial aspect of the Holy Eucharist for starters. The Holy Eucharist was commanded us by Jesus to be an everlasting memorial of his death on the cross. How would he suggest we observe this commandment of Christ Jesus? Regarding the Real Presence in the Eucharist, you might offer that Catholics take the final Words of Jesus to His Apostles on the night before He offered His life for us, to be genuinely true and literal, as did His Apostles, which is recorded over and over again in the Bible. You might inquire by what earthly authority he decides something in the Bible is meant symbolically or literally, since it would be taking a terribly risk if that authority wasn’t descended from the Authority of Jesus Christ himself.

 

[boeck249]

you need to understand the significance of passover.

You have to eat the lamb and smear it blood on your door post in order to be passed over. if not you were struck down. the passover meal occurred prior the Israelite freedom from Egypt.likewise you were required to eat the passover meal in order to remain a practicing Jew.

The Jews knew that they were freed once from the Egyptians but still continue celebrate passover even to this day.

Jesus is our lamb and the wine is his blood.

 

[PJM]

=MBd;6921990]What’s the proper response to a protestant who tells you that the Holy Eucharist isn’t the REAL body,blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and that this or any other sacrifice isn’t necesary because Jesus already died for us and his redemption on the cross is enough?

Thanks and God bless you

Perhaps with charity asking:

Do you beleive that Jesus is God?

Do you believe that God is Good?

Do you beleive that God can do anything that is good? For IF this is true [IT IS] its the GREATEST GOOD in the history of the World on a par with Christ on His Cross.

Do you believe in 2 Tim. 3:16-17

**“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, **for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Are you aware that FIVE DIFFERENT NT authors proclaim this TRUTH about th Euchrist?

Mt. 26:26-28, Mk. 14:22-24, Lk. 22:19-21, Paul 1 Cor. 11:23-29 and these words of Jesus Himself in John Ch. Six:47-56

KEEPING IN MIND THAT JESUS IS GOD; CANNOT LIE; AND AS GOD IS PERFECTLY CLEAR, KNOWS EXCATLY WHAT AND WHY HE USES THESE PRECISE WORDS.

John.6 Verses 47 to 56

[47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 8] I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. **He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. **

So FIVE NT authors calim its truth, and you based on one verse [v. 63] JUST LIKE THE JEWS THAT CHRIST RESPONDED TOO, [v. 52] are able to call God a liar, a fool, or an idiot who does not know what He is saying?

Friend it is the GLORIFIED RISEN Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity that we consume. Truly God and TRULY man in this new Perfected Glorified Body. NOT his cardnial body as you and the Jews assume in error.

READ THESE VERSES by FIVE DIFFERENT AUTHORS!

Love and prayers,

 

[Pax]

Here is my usual response:

Jesus was born in Bethlehem which means “house of bread.”

Jesus was laid in a manger which is a feeding trough.

Jesus works three miracles prior to the discourse on the bread of life in John 6.
The three miracles are the changing of the water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana, the feeding of the five thousand with the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and finally Jesus walks on water. There are no parables ahead of or subsequent to the discourse on the bread of life.

These three miracles are a preparation for the discourse in John 6 to enable the listeners to believe Jesus words in the discourse. The first two miracles demonstrate what Jesus can do with food, and the third shows what he can do with his body. The connection to food and his body in this series of miracles is illuminating. Moreover, right after the miracle at Cana when Jesus is questioned about giving a sign demonstrating his authority to drive the money changers from the temple, he speaks of the future miracle of his resurrection. We see this in John 2:19 where Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Jesus goes on in John 5:28-29 to speak of another future miracle. That miracle references the general resurrection on the day of judgment.

Then later, in the actual discourse on the bread of life itself, Jesus references even more miracles. He compares giving his body and blood as true food and true drink to the miraculous food of the manna in the desert. The manna was true food and it was a miracle. Likewise, Jesus references another miracle in the discourse in verse 62. When the Jews did not believe Jesus promise of the Eucharist, he asked, “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” This reference is to his later/future ascension into heaven. Thus Jesus has compared his promised miracle of the Eucharist to an OT miracle of food and to a future NT miracle of his bodily ascension. Jesus clearly connects food and his body in two miracles. This is indicative that his body and blood will be given as miraculous true food and true drink.

Jesus does not speak in parables subsequent to the discourse on the bread of life, but there are subsequent mentions of miracles in general and a specific reference to Jesus healing the blind man using his spittle and earth to make a salve of clay to cure the blindness[Jn 9:6]. Once again, Jesus uses common material in a miracle. It isn’t until Chapter 10 that we see any metaphors. Jesus is not speaking metaphorically in John 6. The fact that the discourse on the bread of life is bracketed by immediate miracles including the mention of future miracles, along with references to two miracles within the discourse itself indicates that he is speaking of a miracle in his promise of giving his body and blood as true food and true drink.

This, however, is only the beginning of how we know Jesus is speaking literally and not figuratively. In the discourse Jesus tells the disciples four different times and in slightly different ways that his body and blood are true food and true drink and that as such they give eternal life. Jesus uses two Greek terms. One is phago and the other is trogo. The former is a generic term “to eat.” The latter is much more graphic and means “to gnaw or chew.” Jesus goes from the weaker term to the stronger term in emphasizing his meaning to the disciples.

Here is the sequence:

1. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.[ate/phago]
2. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.[eat/phago]
3. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."[eats/phago]
4. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[eat/phago]
5. So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;[eat/phago]
6. he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.[eats/trogo]
7. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
8. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.[eats/trogo]
9. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.[eats/trogo]
10. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." [eats/trogo]

It is also important to note what is said in verse 51. It says “and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” Jesus tells us that the bread that is true food that he will give us is the same flesh that will hang upon the cross for our salvation. If the bread of life that is true food is Jesus flesh that will hang upon the cross then it must be literal and cannot be metaphorical. If Jesus was speaking metaphorically about giving us his body as true food, then he had to be talking metaphorically about his body being hung upon the cross for our salvation. No one believes the latter and no one should therefore doubt the former. You simply can’t have it both ways.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

Another very important point to be made about John 6:53 pertains to the use of the word “life.” Once again the verse says: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;” The Greek word for “life” used in John 6:53, is “zoen” which means, “divine life of God imparted to us”. There are other Greek words for “life” that St. John could have chosen, such as “bios” which simply means “life”. The fact that he chose the word that he did, lends great credibility to the literal meaning of this verse and with not a hint of symbolism.

The OT prefigures the NT and is but a shadow of the good things that come in the NT. The manna is true food but is a lesser miracle than the Eucharist and this is made clear by the comparison in the discourse. Likewise, the ascension of the Lord in the NT is a true miracle and it is compared with the greater miracle of the Eucharist.

In verse 63 Jesus says “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” He is not telling us that “his” flesh avails nothing for it is “his” flesh that will hang upon the cross for our salvation. He is using the term flesh the way Paul does. It means human effort avails nothing. Attempting to carnally understand in a weak “fleshy” manner will not lead to belief in his promise. His words are spirit and life and require a spiritual man with spiritual discernment to understand and believe. Jesus rightly says that his words are spirit and life. One simply needs to read the words he spoke and believe them in faith rather than understanding them without faith and then walking away like the disciples did. If they had misunderstood Jesus and were walking away Jesus would have explained his meaning. This is the only occasion that Jesus let anyone walk away, and he would not have done so if they “misunderstood” him.

The words of Jesus at the Last Supper could not be more clear and they coincide with the literal message of John 6. One cannot nuance Jesus words “This is my body.” Likewise, Paul reiterates the literalness of Jesus words in 1 Cor 10:16-17 when he says:
Quote:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

Then again in 1 Cor 11:23-30 Paul says this:
Quote:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”

Please notice that Paul uses the same literal words of Jesus which he quotes from the Last Supper as revealed to him by Jesus. He does not make any reference to symbolism. Likewise, he says that if you receive the Eucharist unworthily that you will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, and that if you eat and drink without “discerning” the body that you eat and drink judgment upon yourself. This can only be true of something literal. You cannot eat and drink judgment upon yourself by way of a symbol. It simply makes no sense.

 

[brb3]

You can accurately accuse them of making allegory of Christ’s literal words.

 

[PJM]

=brb3;6927607]You can accurately accuse them of making allegory of Christ’s literal words.

Protestants are only partially to blame for there lack of understanding. Behind it all is Gods Divine Will.

He God grants Wisdom an Understanding to whom it please Him.

By virtue of the MANY THOUSANDS of protestant denominations is a few short hundreds of years; God gives clear evidence that it is His Will, His punishment to them for ignoring what the Bible clearly says.

One Church / One Faith has over 100 references in the NT, which daily are ignored like God didn’t really mean it.

Further the common experience of taking what is literal and “making is metaphorical” and what is “metaphorical” as literal is further evidence of there folly and God’s JUST hand.

**FIVE NTauthors give testimony ** to he literal truth of the Most Holy Ecunaristic Real Presence of God’s Glorified an Risen Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

And based on a single verse Jn. 6:63] they claim grounds to disclaim Biblical TRUTH; Despite **the FACT that in vs. 60-61 [same book and chapter] **God CORRECTS the Jews for the precisely- identical LACK OF UNDERSTANDING. Protestants just like the Jews are thinking CARDINAL body and blood; God is givingus HIS GLORIED, RISEN, PERFECTED, BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY.

Absolutely incredible lack of inderstaning and even more so; doubing the one they calim as there God? Simply amazing!

Despite being warned by Yahweh God that His ways are not our way’s [Isa. 55:8-9] anything not easily comprended is presumed to untrue. This of course ngats God raising people from the dead, walking on water, proving Manna for fourty years and there demand drom God: “and Give us flesh to eat”

**Exod.16: [3] **and said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate bread to the full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” 8] And Moses said, “**When the LORD gives you in the evening flesh to eat and in the morning bread to the full, because the LORD has heard your murmurings which you murmur against him – what are we? Your murmurings are not against us but against the LORD.” ****12] **“I have heard the murmurings of the people of Israel; say to them, `At twilight you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread; then you shall know that I am the LORD your God.’” to eat "

And another typology:

From the FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE:

**Gen. 14: 18-19 **And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High,

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Big_Dummy]

What’s the proper response to a protestant who tells you that the Holy Eucharist isn’t the REAL body,blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and that this or any other sacrifice isn’t necesary because Jesus already died for us and his redemption on the cross is enough?

Thanks and God bless you

Is there a difference in sacrafices within catholic doctrine?

for example, one remaining single and caste to be a priest would be a sacrafice, right? But, that sacrafice would not be the same as Jesus on the cross atonement, right?

 

[inocente]

What’s the proper response to a protestant who tells you that the Holy Eucharist isn’t the REAL body,blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and that this or any other sacrifice isn’t necesary because Jesus already died for us and his redemption on the cross is enough?

Does this come from a different interpretation of Hebrews 7:26-28?

Whatever, the proper response is to ask who are they to judge you, for which there are several verses, including the handy Matthew 7:1.

 

[Pax]

Is there a difference in sacrafices within catholic doctrine?

for example, one remaining single and caste to be a priest would be a sacrafice, right? But, that sacrafice would not be the same as Jesus on the cross atonement, right?

Yes…there are different sacrifices, but I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

 

[Pax]

What’s the proper response to a protestant who tells you that the Holy Eucharist isn’t the REAL body,blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and that this or any other sacrifice isn’t necesary because Jesus already died for us and his redemption on the cross is enough?

Thanks and God bless you

Does this come from a different interpretation of Hebrews 7:26-28?

The sacrifice referred to in Hebrews 7:26-28 is the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. This is the same sacrifice re-presented at the Catholic mass in the Eucharistic celebration. It is not a different sacrifice. It is the once and for all, perfect sacrifice of Jesus.

Malachi 1:11-12 helps to shed some light on this. This particular passage is a prophecy which reads as follows:

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts. But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised.

Please note that this is a prophecy and that at the time of Malachi the Lord’s name was not known let alone great among the nations of the world. There is only one “pure offering” ever given to God, and that offering was the perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Nevertheless, Malachi says that this pure offering will be offered from the rising of the sun to its setting throughout the nations and in every place incense will be offered in the Lord’s name. This is the Catholic mass with the re-presentation of the eternal one time sacrifice of Jesus.

It is also important to note the reference to the Lord’s table and the food that is on that table. This is the precious body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist. Moreover, Malachi indicates that this food can be profaned. The apostle Paul makes specific reference to this very same thing in 1 Corinthians.

In 1 Cor 10:16 Paul says:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

He then goes on to say the following in 1 Cor 11:23-27:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of **profaning **the body and blood of the Lord.

Paul reiterates what is said in Malachi even to the extent of mentioning that the sacred food on the Lord’s table can be “profaned.” This is real food and real drink and it is a participation in body and blood of the Lord. It is the same “once and for all sacrifice” re-presented from the rising of the sun until its setting. It is the eternal sacrifice referred to in the book of Revelation depicting Jesus before the throne as a lamb that has been slain[Rev 5:6].

The eternal(unending) sacrifice of Jesus which is present in heaven before the Father is simply re-presented in time on earth in the Eucharist. This is the meeting of heaven and earth where we receive the food for eternal life mentioned in John 6 in the discourse on the bread of life.

God bless.

 

[Psalm_51]

In John chapter 6:

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?
…66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
.

Notice that Jesus let his own disciples turn away. He didn’t say to them: “hey fellas, I was only speaking figuratively, come back!” Yes it is indeed a very hard teaching for those disciples and for Protestants.

 

[inocente]

What’s the proper response to a protestant who tells you that the Holy Eucharist isn’t the REAL body,blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and that this or any other sacrifice isn’t necesary because Jesus already died for us and his redemption on the cross is enough?

Thanks and God bless you

From my Protestant perspective, the clearest and most concise argument for you would be a combination of post #15 (Pax) and post #16 (Psalm 51) rounded off with the handy Matthew 7:1.

God bless you too.

 

[Psalm_51]

From my Protestant perspective, the clearest and most concise argument for you would be a combination of post #15 (Pax) and post #16 (Psalm 51) rounded off with the handy Matthew 7:1.

God bless you too.

What is your point about Matthew 7:1?

 

[inocente]

What is your point about Matthew 7:1?

We can learn from and correct each other but not step over the line into judging each other, cf. Romans 14.