Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord's Supper/Eucharist?

[Rightlydivide]

I believe the key to understand John 6 is understanding the whole passage. What has been brought up is that the absolutely crucial 6:63.

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Let me address this again and finish out the chapter. First of all, Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing. He has just used the word flesh (SARX) in the following verses 53 (SARX), 54 (SARX), 55 (SARX), and 56 (SARX).

Now the Catholic argument against 6:63 is that all of a sudden, the flesh (SARX) relates to them not being able to comprehend. Of course the passage does not say that in any way. You cannot add words that are not there. Although some try to. Here it is yet again.

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh (SARX) profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Christ asks if they are offended (SKANDALIZO). Look up the usage of this word in the Gospels. Christ KNEW they would be offended and it was intentional. Make no mistake about it, Christ’s words accomplished what he wanted them to.
How do I know that?

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

If not convinced, read the next passage

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

The Father has not given these with a lack of belief in who Christ is to them.

No where in any of this elaboration do we get the indication that these people truly believed.

Look at how the chapter ends. Does it end talking about the Eucharist or does it end talking about believing who Christ IS. Not some future ceremony. They believe. The ones who are left believe in who Christ IS. That is the point of the whole passage.

Jhn 6:68-69 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

In closing

Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

 

[Rightlydivide]

i do like you rightly divide. and at times you amuse me. your alright.

Likewise to you as well.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe the key to understand John 6 is understanding the whole passage. What has been brought up is that the absolutely crucial 6:63.

Let me address this again and finish out the chapter. First of all, Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing. He has just used the word flesh (SARX) in the following verses 53 (SARX), 54 (SARX), 55 (SARX), and 56 (SARX).

Now the Catholic argument against 6:63 is that all of a sudden, the flesh (SARX) relates to them not being able to comprehend. Of course the passage does not say that in any way. You cannot add words that are not there. Although some try to. Here it is yet again.

Christ asks if they are offended (SKANDALIZO). Look up the usage of this word in the Gospels. Christ KNEW they would be offended and it was intentional. Make no mistake about it, Christ’s words accomplished what he wanted them to.
How do I know that?

You contradict your own statement with that it wasn’t that they didn’t understand else, why would Christ have asked if they were offended? Would they have been offended if they had understood a ‘supposed’ symbolism?

Look at the verses supporting the sensual man thinking and not spiritually examining, or them not understanding.

**Joh 6:41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
Joh 6:42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he: I came down from heaven?

Joh 6:52 (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Joh 6:60 (6:61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? **

Now, let’s examine your ‘proof’’ against another passage.

**Joh 6:65 (6:66) And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.**

Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it, because the flesh profiteth nothing, but the Father, the Holy Spirit or spirit and life revealed the answer to Peter. Just as the sensual man could not profiteth what the Lord told them because they did not spiritually examine what was being said.

1Co 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.
1Co 2:15 But the spiritual man judgeth all things: and he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

You want to point out the Greek for flesh, did you look at the word for ‘eat’?

G5176
τρώγω
trōgō
tro’-go
Probably strengthened from a collateral form of the base of G5134 and G5147 through the idea of corrosion or wear; or perhaps rather of a base of G5167 and G5149 through the idea of a craunching sound; to gnaw or chew, that is, (genitive case) to eat: - eat.

The Father has not given these with a lack of belief in who Christ is to them.

No where in any of this elaboration do we get the indication that these people truly believed.

Look at how the chapter ends. Does it end talking about the Eucharist or does it end talking about believing who Christ IS. Not some future ceremony. They believe. The ones who are left believe in who Christ IS. That is the point of the whole passage.

In closing

You totally bypass an explanation of why He turned to the Apostles and ask them, “Will you go away also?” They believed He had the words of eternal life and they just witnesses His words.

Joh 6:53 (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

How can anyone deny this, or that this was an explanation of a coming ceremony that He would require, in light of all the Gospel account’s of the Last Supper, where the Lord said,

Mat 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body.
Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Does it end talking about the Eucharist or does it end talking about believing who Christ IS. Not some future ceremony.

I’ve always said on these forums, you must read a verse within a passage, a passage within a chapter, a chapter within the book it’s in and the book within the Testament it’s in to receive the full context.

Read John 6, Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1 Corinthians 11. Receive the context of what was being foretold by Christ, who foretold His own suffering several times to the Apostles, who did not understand, but He did not let them walk away from Him.

We have presented scriptures,with explanations, and writings from the early Church fathers supporting the Catholic view. As I wrote how to read in context I will add, the Old foretells the New and the New fulfills the Old.

**Gen 14:18 But Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,

Exo 12:5 And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year; according to which rite also you shall take a kid.

Exo 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh that night roasted at the fire, and unleavened bread with wild lettuce.

Exo 12:46 In one house shall it be eaten, neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house, neither shall you break a bone thereof.

Exo 25:23 Thou shalt make a table also of setim wood, of two cubits in length, and a cubit in breadth, and a cubit and a half in height.
Exo 25:24 And thou shalt overlay it with the purest gold: and thou shalt make to it a golden ledge round about.
Exo 25:25 And to the ledge itself a polished crown, four inches high; and over the same another little golden crown.
Exo 25:26 Thou shalt prepare also four golden rings, and shalt put them in the four corners of the same table, over each foot.
Exo 25:27 Under the crown shall the golden rings be, that the bars may be put through them, and the table may be carried.
Exo 25:28 The bars also themselves thou shalt make of setim wood, and shalt overlay them with gold, to bear up the table.
Exo 25:29 Thou shalt prepare also dishes, and bowls, censers, and cups, wherein the libations are to be offered, of the purest gold.
Exo 25:30 And thou shalt set upon the table loaves of proposition in my sight always.

Psa 110:4 The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.**

(continued)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As we went from one covenant to the new and everlasting covenant, we’ve gone from one ‘ceremony’ (as somone refers to it) to a new and improved ceremony.

**The Passover meal was part of the covenant from God and men. It required an active participation. In reading Exodus 12:17, we see this was to be done perpetually, for ever. To reject the Last Supper as the adjustment to, or replacement of, or more specifically a fulfillment of, the covenant command of God, means we should still be celebrating the Passover meal as prescribed by God.

We know from Jeremiah 31:31, a new covenant was prophesied. This prophesy was brought to mind in the New Testament, in a letter from St. Paul to the Hebrews 8:7 – 12.

The prescription of the Passover meal was detailed and clear from the Lord, as written in Exodus 12.

A lamb without blemish was to be slaughtered at twilight, eaten with unleavened bread, the lamb’s blood was to be sprinkled on the doorposts with hyssop, none of the lamb’s bones were to be broken, and this ordinance was to be celebrated perpetually.

The Jewish Passover meal consisted of:

1. The Festival Blessing – Drink from the 1st cup of wine.
2. Passover Narrative and Little Hallel (Psalms 113) – Drink from 2nd cup of wine.
3. Main Meal: roasted lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs and spices – Drink from 3rd cup of wine.
4. Great Hallel (Psalms 114 – 118) and the drinking of the 4th cup of wine, and closed when presiding priest or host says the phrase, “TEL TELESTI” which is interpreted as “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.

Now let’s look at the Lord’s Supper that occurred during the celebration of the Passover, or Seder, meal.

3 of the Gospel authors told us about the Lord’s Supper. Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote about it. All 3 say He gave the cup, of the new covenant, to the Apostles and told them to drink, but it does not tell us that Christ, the High Priest, drank of the cup. Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18, tells us that, during the Passover meal, Christ announced He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until he drank it in the Kingdom of God. After making this announcement, Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 tell us, “Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” After singing a hymn, the great Hallel, they went out to the garden, without the High Priest closing the celebration, not only not closing the celebration, but declaring He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until He drank it in the Kingdom of God. He did not say, “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.
In the garden, our Lord prayed to the father to let this cup be passed from Him, if it was the Father’s will. Matthew 22:44 tells us that Christ prayed this 3 times. What cup was Christ praying be passed from Him? I believe it was the 4th cup that closed the Passover meal, which was fulfilled with the Lord’s Supper.

When God made the covenant with Moses, Moses asked who to tell had told him of the covenant, Exodus 3:13 – 14. God told Moses, “I am, who I am.”

When Christ was arrested in the garden, He asked who they were looking for and they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth”. In John 18:5, Jesus told them, “I AM he”. When those arresting Him heard this, they went backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6).

Mark 15:22 – 24 told us that Christ was offered wine drugged with myrrh, but He did not drink it.

John 19:28 – 30 explains that Our Lord, aware that everything was now finished, in order that scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst”. Hearing this, they took a sponge and dipped it in common wine, sour wine, fruit of the vine, and held it up to His mouth with hyssop. After taking the wine, our Lord said, “It is finished”, bowed His head and gave up the spirit.

John 19:33 – 38 told us that our Lord’s legs were not broken, so that scripture might be fulfilled.

Mark 15:33 – 34 tells us the time the Lamb of God death, which was twilight, the same time Moses was instructed to slaughter the sacrificial lamb.

Christ came to fulfill the law, and it was fulfilled with the new covenant. A covenant of God and men, that requires participation of those being set free.**

 

[Anna_Scott]

Response to AmeteurPianist—Continued Part 2 of 2

As far as I know, Paul is still believed to have written 1 Corinthians (Bible scholars-please correct me if I’m wrong.)

In this passage, Paul does not limit the Lord’s Supper to “remembrance.” He speaks of the participation in the body and blood of Christ.

1 Corinthians 10: 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?"

See earlier comment re the Disciples lacking the full understanding of Christ’s words, while He was still with them.

Would you clarify? You spoke earlier re the verb “is” and if “is” means “equivalence” or “symbolic.” Are you still referring to I Corinthians 10:14-17?

Well now you are back to “Remembrance only” versus “something more”.

Yes, and it is the “something more” that I am so concerned about.

The scary question for me is, "How solid is our path to salvation, if we deny the very Words of Christ, instructing us to consume His flesh and blood? If we, Protestants, have this all wrong; what does that mean for the fate of our souls.

You know, as I recall having read WikiPedia, my closest match was the Wesleyan traditional Methodist understanding of the real presence. As I recall, they do believe in it but make no attempt to explain or understand it. When I look at how the Lord seemed to me to approach it as though I am receiving the blood and body of Christ, that seems to be a close match to Mr. Wesley (who happens to be one of my favorite early Protestants).

Interesting comment, AP; and I can really relate to what you said, here.

It is far more difficult for me to accept the idea of “Transubstantiation,” than to accept that there is ***mystery ***involved in the way the “Real Presence” of Christ occurs during the Lord’s Supper.

I visited an Episcopal Church, yesterday (great experience, btw, and plan to attend again next week.) As a guest, I received literature, including a pamphlet entitled, “What It Means to be an Episcopalian.” This is a quote regarding the Holy Eucharist:

What It Means to be an Episcopalian
“Holy Eucharist–remembrance of, and praise and thanksgiving for, Christ’s death and resurrection. In Holy Communion, ordinary bread and wine become the sacramental vehicle for Jesus Christ’s presence within his people, as he promised. When receiving Communion, Episcopalians offer themselves to God in repentance, love, and faith–and recall Jesus’ death, acknowledge his sacrifice and renew hope in the heavenly banquet.”
2008 Edition
©2005 Channing Bete Company, Inc. All rights reserved. • Printed in USA. Channing Bete Company, One Community Place, South Deerfield, MA 01373

After I have written all these things, a new question arises: If the pastor, priest, etc. administers the Sacrament of Holy Communion, without the proper belief/understanding and/or authority; in what are we actually partaking? Another scary questions for me.

I welcome any further comments.

Thanks so much,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

You’ve made a good point in saying, “Whatever the audience had in mind when Jesus spoke these words, it would not have been communion.” This is a reasonable assumption; but I would not necessarily see this as ruling out the “Real presence.”

One reason being: Christ told the Disciples many things they did not fully understand, until Christ’s death and resurrection; and more was given through the Holy Spirit, after the Ascension of Christ.

I agree.

Must we have the words of the Apostles, in addition to the words of Christ—in order for Christ’s words to be true?

But remember where I am coming from. I have one the one hand the way that I have always read John 6 in a way that I have always been comfortable with. Now I have a new proposed way of reading this chapter that I have never thought of. Whenever anybody comes to me with new ideas relating to Scripture, one response I always have is to ask as many stupid questions as I can and see where the disconnects are.

AmateurPianist,

I always enjoy discussions with you, AP; because of your honesty, and the fact that you really weigh the issues and have the courage to reexamine long-held beliefs.

As I said before, I am asking myself, as I am asking you. So, we are considering a new perspective together. ----And, AP, your questions are insightful, and not in any sense of the word, “stupid.”

As I have said before, my big disconnect with this new proposed reading is Jesus relating this to salvation and eternal life. Since I have not adopted this new reading yet, I notice first this new reading not only affects how I view communion but how I view how one comes to eternal life in Jesus Christ.

I have the same concerns; and you’re right. The reevaluation of these passages not only causes us to question what occurs during Communion; but also reconsider the requirements of salvation. This is a deeply profound issue.

This is a biggie change and I am going to ask a zillion questions before I change how I view eternal life through Jesus Christ happens. In my own life how I came to eternal life in Jesus Christ had absolutely nothing to do with receiving communion.

Same experience for me, AP. I had never considered a connection between Communion/Lord’s Supper and salvation.

And yet Christ clearly states: “. . . .unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” and “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6: 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."

It is interesting to me, how we can be taught to consider certain passages of Scripture, while others are ignored. Protestants quote Scriptures that point to “remembrance,” such as Luke 22:19-20; and avoid passages that point to consuming the body and blood of Christ–in a literal sense.

**Luke 22 (ESV): **19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Then, there is the issue of interpretation. I touched on this in my OP (and on other Threads.) How do we know when a passage is literal and when it is symbolic/allegorical? I don’t understand the rules.

The very Christians, who claim the Genesis 6-day creation is literal, also claim Christ’s instructions to consume His flesh and blood are symbolic.

I was told by my Baptist Bible Class Teacher, that I may have a “faith issue,” because I do not believe in a literal 6-day creation. Yet, this same Baptist Church denies the “Real Presence” of Christ during the Lord’s Supper. This makes no sense to me.

Ironically, asking questions about the “Catholic” Eucharist on BaptistBoard.com (see OP) resulted in an immediate “trial of my salvation.” Of course, stating “I believe Catholics are Christians” didn’t help either.

So, AP, asking the “zillion questions” is so very important. That is why I started this Thread. I have heard the Catholic argument for the “Real Presence” (though I am learning new things on this Thread); and I wanted to discuss the issue with Baptist Apologists (still hoping the Baptists will join the discussion.)

You are doing a good job, in the stead of my Baptist brethren; and your participation is greatly appreciated.

Continued—Next Post

 

[Anna_Scott]

----Response to AmeteurPianist—Continued Part 2 of 2

As far as I know, Paul is still believed to have written 1 Corinthians (Bible scholars-please correct me if I’m wrong.)

In this passage, Paul does not limit the Lord’s Supper to “remembrance.” He speaks of the participation in the body and blood of Christ.

1 Corinthians 10: 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?"

See earlier comment re the Disciples lacking the full understanding of Christ’s words, while He was still with them.

Would you clarify? You spoke earlier re the verb “is” and if “is” means “equivalence” or “symbolic.” Are you still referring to I Corinthians 10:14-17?

Well now you are back to “Remembrance only” versus “something more”.

Yes, and it is the “something more” that I am so concerned about.

The scary question for me is, "How solid is our path to salvation, if we deny the very Words of Christ, instructing us to consume His flesh and blood? If we, Protestants, have this all wrong; what does that mean for the fate of our souls.

You know, as I recall having read WikiPedia, my closest match was the Wesleyan traditional Methodist understanding of the real presence. As I recall, they do believe in it but make no attempt to explain or understand it. When I look at how the Lord seemed to me to approach it as though I am receiving the blood and body of Christ, that seems to be a close match to Mr. Wesley (who happens to be one of my favorite early Protestants).

Interesting comment, AP; and I can really relate to what you said, here.

It is far more difficult for me to accept the idea of “Transubstantiation,” than to accept that there is ***mystery ***involved in the way the “Real Presence” of Christ occurs during the Lord’s Supper.

I visited an Episcopal Church, yesterday (great experience, btw, and plan to attend again next week.) As a guest, I received literature, including a pamphlet entitled, “What It Means to be an Episcopalian.” This is a quote regarding the Holy Eucharist:

What It Means to be an Episcopalian
“Holy Eucharist–remembrance of, and praise and thanksgiving for, Christ’s death and resurrection. In Holy Communion, ordinary bread and wine become the sacramental vehicle for Jesus Christ’s presence within his people, as he promised. When receiving Communion, Episcopalians offer themselves to God in repentance, love, and faith–and recall Jesus’ death, acknowledge his sacrifice and renew hope in the heavenly banquet.”
2008 Edition
©2005 Channing Bete Company, Inc. All rights reserved. • Printed in USA. Channing Bete Company, One Community Place, South Deerfield, MA 01373

After I have written all these things, a new question arises: If the pastor, priest, etc. administers the Sacrament of Holy Communion, without the proper belief/understanding and/or authority; in what are we actually partaking? Another scary question for me. eek!

I welcome any further comments.

Thanks so much,
Anna

 

[Rightlydivide]

The concept of understanding as it relates to John 6 is crucial. Lets look at what it says one more time.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

This is the important part. They do not believe him. But wait, they do not believe him about the Eucharist…right?? That is what the Catholic is saying when they attempt to make 6:63 into something it is not.

NO. He knew from the** beginning** they believed not. The beginning of the discourse in John 6?? That has to be your position if you are going to defend the Catholic interpretation of this passage.
No of course not.
From the beginning and that they would betray him.
Their lack of believing is pushed to the head by Christ. Of course he ups the language he uses about chewing and tearing. Why? Because people savagely rip into the accidents of the host? That is what you must believe I suppose. No, the imagery did what it was meant to do. Get rid of those who never believed in the first place.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The concept of understanding as it relates to John 6 is crucial. Lets look at what it says one more time.

This is the important part. They do not believe him. But wait, they do not believe him about the Eucharist…right?? That is what the Catholic is saying when they attempt to make 6:63 into something it is not.

NO. He knew from the** beginning** they believed not. The beginning of the discourse in John 6?? That has to be your position if you are going to defend the Catholic interpretation of this passage.
No of course not.
From the beginning and that they would betray him.
Their lack of believing is pushed to the head by Christ. Of course he ups the language he uses about chewing and tearing. Why? Because people savagely rip into the accidents of the host? That is what you must believe I suppose. No, the imagery did what it was meant to do. Get rid of those who never believed in the first place.

Christ who visited and was in the presence of sinners and even said, it was them He was here for? Christ who prayed for those who persecuted Him, for they know not what they do? Christ, who often had to explain His parables? Christ who proved to Thomas, it was He, when Thomas doubted Him? He decided in this instance to, “Get rid of those who never believed in the first place.”?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

**mystery **

involved in the way the “Real Presence” of Christ occurs during the Lord’s Supper.

FYI:

From the Catholic catechism:

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread…” “He took the cup filled with wine…” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,[152] fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.[153]

 

[Rightlydivide]

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Absolutely he knew from the beginning who believed not.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Absolutely he knew from the beginning who believed not.

This is true, but we also know that God calls all men to himself which puts the ball in our court.

He knows, but he let’s us choose:

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
John 12:31-32

For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Rom 11:32

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness** leads to justification and life for all**. Rom. 5:18

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,
Titus 2:11,12

 

[jmcrae]

But seriously, I read your first posts, you have been open to Catholicism long before you came to this forum by your own admission as you studied.

Actually, Anna only very recently started becoming “open” to it - up until perhaps the last month or so, she has been a staunch Protestant, defending Protestant beliefs against what she honestly considered to be Catholic errors - quite vigorously, too. She has only now come to the end of her arguments, and found them lacking. When she first came, she was as strong a Protestant as you are - perhaps even stronger.

 

[jmcrae]

The scary question for me is, "How solid is our path to salvation, if we deny the very Words of Christ, instructing us to consume His flesh and blood? If we, Protestants, have this all wrong; what does that mean for the fate of our souls.

Keep in mind that Christ, the merciful Judge, will only judge us on what we were able to know, and what was physically possible for us to do.

I visited an Episcopal Church, yesterday (great experience, btw, and plan to attend again next week.)

I’m glad it was a good experience.

As a guest, I received literature, including a pamphlet entitled, “What It Means to be an Episcopalian.” This is a quote regarding the Holy Eucharist:

What It Means to be an Episcopalian
“Holy Eucharist–remembrance of, and praise and thanksgiving for, Christ’s death and resurrection. In Holy Communion, ordinary bread and wine become the sacramental vehicle for Jesus Christ’s presence within his people, as he promised. When receiving Communion, Episcopalians offer themselves to God in repentance, love, and faith–and recall Jesus’ death, acknowledge his sacrifice and renew hope in the heavenly banquet.”
2008 Edition
©2005 Channing Bete Company, Inc. All rights reserved. • Printed in USA. Channing Bete Company, One Community Place, South Deerfield, MA 01373

So, this particular congregation takes a Sacramental view of it, but they don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the way that Catholics do.

Did you happen to notice what they do with the bread and wine that is left after the service is over? This gives us an idea of their actual beliefs, no matter what they put on paper. If they reserved it in a Tabernacle, then it’s likely that at some level they have an idea of the Real Presence, but if they just threw it away, or turned it to some other use, then they see it as just a symbol. (I don’t think a symbolic Jesus can get you to anything other than a symbolic Heaven, though.)

After I have written all these things, a new question arises: If the pastor, priest, etc. administers the Sacrament of Holy Communion, without the proper belief/understanding and/or authority; in what are we actually partaking?

The Catholic view? A rather poverty-stricken dinner of bread and wine - nothing more.

That seems harsh, I know, but in the Catholic Church, we believe that the small piece of bread and the small sip of wine are really and truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that in partaking of these things, we are actually receiving Jesus into our bodies, minds, and souls.

By comparison, a small piece of bread and a small sip of wine that aren’t really anything more than that seem - well - it seems as if one would get more out of it, both physically and spiritually, to attend a Church supper with a full plate of food, a full cup of whatever you like to drink, and companions to talk to, rather than just a small piece of bread and a small sip of wine.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Actually, Anna only very recently started becoming “open” to it - up until perhaps the last month or so, she has been a staunch Protestant, defending Protestant beliefs against what she honestly considered to be Catholic errors - quite vigorously, too. She has only now come to the end of her arguments, and found them lacking. When she first came, she was as strong a Protestant as you are - perhaps even stronger.

Her very first post says she** prefers **Catholic Bible translations.

Her 8th post says

Please don’t lump all of the non-Catholic Christians into one category.
I am a Protestant Christian and I neither hate nor fear the Catholic Church. Actually, I am interested in your beliefs. I think if we can reach a point of respectful dialogue, we may find that we are not so much at odds after all.

It may be a matter of interpretation but the ones I read from her first two pages of history…I stick by my statement. Regardless

 

[Anna_Scott]

The scary question for me is, "How solid is our path to salvation, if we deny the very Words of Christ, instructing us to consume His flesh and blood? If we, Protestants, have this all wrong; what does that mean for the fate of our souls.

Keep in mind that Christ, the merciful Judge, will only judge us on what we were able to know, and what was physically possible for us to do.

Thankful for God’s Mercy, very thankful, indeed.

I visited an Episcopal Church, yesterday (great experience, btw, and plan to attend again next week.)

I’m glad it was a good experience.

As a guest, I received literature, including a pamphlet entitled, “What It Means to be an Episcopalian.” This is a quote regarding the Holy Eucharist:

What It Means to be an Episcopalian
“Holy Eucharist–remembrance of, and praise and thanksgiving for, Christ’s death and resurrection. In Holy Communion, ordinary bread and wine become the sacramental vehicle for Jesus Christ’s presence within his people, as he promised. When receiving Communion, Episcopalians offer themselves to God in repentance, love, and faith–and recall Jesus’ death, acknowledge his sacrifice and renew hope in the heavenly banquet.”
2008 Edition
©2005 Channing Bete Company, Inc. All rights reserved. • Printed in USA. Channing Bete Company, One Community Place, South Deerfield, MA 01373

So, this particular congregation takes a Sacramental view of it, but they don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the way that Catholics do.

Not entirely certain, yet; but will find out.

Did you happen to notice what they do with the bread and wine that is left after the service is over? This gives us an idea of their actual beliefs, no matter what they put on paper. If they reserved it in a Tabernacle, then it’s likely that at some level they have an idea of the Real Presence, but if they just threw it away, or turned it to some other use, then they see it as just a symbol. (I don’t think a symbolic Jesus can get you to anything other than a symbolic Heaven, though.)

No, I didn’t notice. I’ll watch more closely next week. Sunday was my first visit. Of course, I sat in the back row and tired to keep up–lots going on.

After I have written all these things, a new question arises: If the pastor, priest, etc. administers the Sacrament of Holy Communion, without the proper belief/understanding and/or authority; in what are we actually partaking?

The Catholic view? A rather poverty-stricken dinner of bread and wine - nothing more.

I walked right into that one, didn’t I?

That seems harsh, I know, but in the Catholic Church, we believe that the small piece of bread and the small sip of wine are really and truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that in partaking of these things, we are actually receiving Jesus into our bodies, minds, and souls.

By comparison, a small piece of bread and a small sip of wine that aren’t really anything more than that seem - well - it seems as if one would get more out of it, both physically and spiritually, to attend a Church supper with a full plate of food, a full cup of whatever you like to drink, and companions to talk to, rather than just a small piece of bread and a small sip of wine.

Jmcrae,

I’ve come to appreciate “harsh,” knowing that when it comes from you–it is out of sincere love and desire for all to come to the fullness of truth.

As always, working out my salvation in fear and trembling,
Anna

 

[schaick]

There is no one who actually does a literal re-enactment of the Lord’s Supper - with congregations numbering in hundreds or even thousands of people, this is physically impossible.

Given this, at Mass, we do wait for one another (everyone lines up in an orderly manner), and each one receives the same amount as everyone else.

How is it done in your church? Does everyone sit down at the Communion table with a plate of unleavened bread and a cup of wine before him, and all eat at once, as at a banquet?

At our church when the numbers aren’t too big -early am. and Sat, evening service we do go up to the altar 12 at a time, kneel, each is given the bread eat all together, then the wine drink all together and leave the altar.

Many of our smaller churches still do it this way. I hope they never stop!

When our Praise service was lasting so long because of the huge numbers going to communion we started the line for communion.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna
I would imagine that most Baptists are like me and do not understand how people can view these passages this way. . . . .But seriously, I read your first posts, you have been open to Catholicism long before you came to this forum by your own admission as you studied. If you join, join. There are six billion people in the world and the vast majority are not Christians. Talking a person out of becoming Catholic is probably quite low on their list…dont you think? Good luck though.

. . . . .Anna, I know Protestants, some of my best friends are Protestants, Anna you are not a Protestant. If so, you are a PINO (Protestant in Name Only). . . . . .

Her very first post says she** prefers **Catholic Bible translations.

Please don’t lump all of the non-Catholic Christians into one category.
I am a Protestant Christian and I neither hate nor fear the Catholic Church. Actually, I am interested in your beliefs. I think if we can reach a point of respectful dialogue, we may find that we are not so much at odds after all.

Actually, Anna only very recently started becoming “open” to it - up until perhaps the last month or so, she has been a staunch Protestant, defending Protestant beliefs against what she honestly considered to be Catholic errors - quite vigorously, too. She has only now come to the end of her arguments, and found them lacking. When she first came, she was as strong a Protestant as you are - perhaps even stronger.

jmcrae is right.

Rightlydivide,

For further amusement, in evaluating the degree of my Protestantness, see the Thread entitled, “What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?” Posts #623 & #631 (June 2009), regarding the Lord’s Supper.

Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=334789&page=16

Then read on through the Thread; and you will find a very, shall we say, “spirited” debate between jmcrae and me.

Enjoy! Knock yourself out! :extrahappy:

Anna**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Absolutely he knew from the beginning who believed not.

Maybe you’re missing my point here. I cannot believe that Christ, who visited with sinners, who took time to explain parables, prayed for those who persecuted Him, died for everyone, forgave Peter’s denial of Him and proved to Thomas He was the risen Christ so he would have no more doubts, let His disciples walk away from Him (get rid of to use your words) without explaining the symbolism you hold too.