Debate The Holy Eucharist not Sola Scriptura

[chrisg93]

I think debate on Sola Scriptura looses as many Catholics as it gains for several reasons…

1. Sola Scriptura is a debate about a sometimes unclear book using the unclear book it self as an authority. That is confusing.
2. SS debate can be made to become very technical and demanding. More demanding than the average person can understand.
3. SS is not in itself a spirtual devotion. It is mostly intellectual.
4. SS is Protestant doctrine. Why would Catholics debate Prot doctrine that isn’t even spirtual?

Debate the Catholic Eucharist instead…

1. I believe that the Catholic Church stands or falls on the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, not Prot SS.
2. The Holy Eucharist is easily defended, by a common person, by the Bible alone. In fact Jesus has already countered any Prot objections to the Catholic Eucharist.
3. The Holy Eucharist is the ultimate spirtual devotion in addition to being intellectual.

 

[RNRobert]

I find it interesting that many Protestants (especially fundamentalists) who claim to take the Bible literally, ignore the literal meanings of Bible passages like John 6:53-56 and 1 Corinthians 12:28-31, which clearly indicate the Real Presence in the Eucharist. If the Eucharist was purely symbolic, then how could we be guilt of Our Lord’s Body and Blood, as St Paul claims? That would be like being charged with murder after tearing up a picture of George W. Bush. I also find it hard to believe that a mere memorial supper (as Protestants view it) could cause Christians to become sick or die.
Someone once wrote, “Where there is no Mass, there is also no Christianity.” I believe it. The Orthodox Churches still have valid ordinations (and thus still a valid Eucharist), and this is why I believe they haven’t suffered the fragmentation and loss of belief so common to Protestantism.

 

[jimmy]

chrisg93:

I think debate on Sola Scriptura looses as many Catholics as it gains for several reasons…

1. Sola Scriptura is a debate about a sometimes unclear book using the unclear book it self as an authority. That is confusing.
2. SS debate can be made to become very technical and demanding. More demanding than the average person can understand.
3. SS is not in itself a spirtual devotion. It is mostly intellectual.
4. SS is Protestant doctrine. Why would Catholics debate Prot doctrine that isn’t even spirtual?

Debate the Catholic Eucharist instead…

1. I believe that the Catholic Church stands or falls on the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, not Prot SS.
2. The Holy Eucharist is easily defended, by a common person, by the Bible alone. In fact Jesus has already countered any Prot objections to the Catholic Eucharist.
3. The Holy Eucharist is the ultimate spirtual devotion in addition to being intellectual.

I agree, the Eucharist is the point on which the Catholic Church rises or Falls. You could easily deffend it using the bible and the church fathers such as Irenaous, Ignatius, and Justin. You can see by reading these writers that they believed that it was the body and blood of Christ.

 

[RNRobert]

Another thing regarding the Eucharist. I never really understood “worship” until I became a Catholic. As a Protestant I would hear preachers talking about worship but nothing I did in Protestant churches seemed related to it. In the Old Testament, the Jews worshipped in the tabernacle (and later the temple) by sacrificing animals on the altar. Revelation 4 described worship at a heavenly altar. But Protestant ‘worship’ Basically singing a bunch of songs, saying some prayers and hearing some preaching, and, once in a blue moon, having the Lord’s Supper (I do remember a Methodist service I was forced to attend one time with my family; they had communion that Sunday, and they did so by going up in small groups to kneel at the altar and partake; this impressed my teenage mind far more than some hokey hymn or droning sermon). But when I came Catholic and particpated in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every Sunday, it all clicked- here was true WORSHIP, God actually made present in a clean oblation (Malachi 1:11, DRB).

 

[JimG]

RNRobert:

Another thing regarding the Eucharist. I never really understood “worship” until I became a Catholic.

Although I’ve always been Catholic, this rings true to me. Even as a child, when I would go to other (non-Catholic) churches, it always seemed to me that “nothing happened there.” At the Mass, something always happened.

I think this may also be the reason that Protestants frequently have a hard time understanding the distinction between prayer and worship. To Catholics, “praying to” the saints is just communication; to Protestants, “praying to” anyone other than God is taken to be “worship.”

 

[tobias]

Upon which Word do we feed?
Scripture- The Lord said ‘You search the Scripture daily because you think you have life in them.’
Or Christ- Rev. ‘The Word of God.’ John ‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life.’
It seems clear to me where our life comes from. I could live the rest of eternity without a Bible, but without Christ, I die tommorrow.

 

[Jermosh]

RNRobert:

I find it interesting that many Protestants (especially fundamentalists) who claim to take the Bible literally, ignore the literal meanings of Bible passages like John 6:53-56 and 1 Corinthians 12:28-31, which clearly indicate the Real Presence in the Eucharist. If the Eucharist was purely symbolic, then how could we be guilt of Our Lord’s Body and Blood, as St Paul claims? That would be like being charged with murder after tearing up a picture of George W. Bush. I also find it hard to believe that a mere memorial supper (as Protestants view it) could cause Christians to become sick or die.
Someone once wrote, “Where there is no Mass, there is also no Christianity.” I believe it. The Orthodox Churches still have valid ordinations (and thus still a valid Eucharist), and this is why I believe they haven’t suffered the fragmentation and loss of belief so common to Protestantism.

Rob,

I am lost trying to figure out how this scripture relates to the Eucharist? I can see that it is a point blank reason for a hiarchy though. Any help?

Peace with you
Jermosh

 

[Maccabees]

I think you dilague with people in what they are interested in whatever the subject may be as that most likley is what bothers them most about the Catholic Church.

On the subject of the Eucharist most evangelicals (I have encountered) have no idea what other denoms teach and their technical differences about the Lord’s supper as they often refer to it.
Fundamentalist through their knowledge of thier cathechism ie Jack Chick think they know all about the catholic church and the eucharist is among their favoirte subjects.
To me scripturally it is strongest evidence for catholic verses protestant teaching.
Evangelicals are oftne blown away at the scriptural strenght of the catholic postion their few objection amounting to one or two verses way out of context is weak and deep down they know it. For they are tuaght to interpret the Bible literally. And the catholic position is just that literal and true to the meaning the authors intended to communicate to the church and the reader.

 

[PhilVaz]

Jermosh << I am lost trying to figure out how this scripture relates to the Eucharist? >>

Of course he meant 1 Corinthians 11:28-31, or 11:23-29 at least.

I think Sola Scriptura will always be the main issue, since there are Lutherans and some Episcopal/Anglicans who accept the literal view of the Eucharist (what they also call a Real Presence) in the Bible and the Fathers. They just have different interpretations going short of transubstantiation. You’re not gonna get transubstantiation explicitly in the ante-Nicene Fathers. The later Fathers (4th century AD and beyond) start to use words that approximate transubstantiation (Greek/Latin words for change, convert, transform, etc). Lutherans will also point to Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Justin (ante-Nicene) for their views.

When you ask a Lutheran where his doctrine of the Eucharist is taught, he will point to the same John 6:51ff, Matt 26:26ff, 1 Cor 10:10-16; 11:23-29 passages. But ask him where his sola scriptura doctrine is found he might point weakly to 2 Tim 3:15-17 or 1 Cor 4:6, then you can go for the kill.

Phil P

 

[puzzleannie]

Christian apologists do not “go in for the kill”
If apologetics is not evangelism, driven by desire to share the fullness of life in Christ, then it degenerates to personal pride, need for dominance, need to be always right, about the apologist, not about Christ. go back to CA homepage and look for How not to share your Catholic Faith, & Search and Rescue. here is your scripture for today, and until this is part of your heart and very being please cease to embarras the Church by debating non-Catholics without it: 1:Cor 13

 

[Scott_Waddell]

puzzleannie:

Christian apologists do not “go in for the kill”
If apologetics is not evangelism, driven by desire to share the fullness of life in Christ, then it degenerates to personal pride, need for dominance, need to be always right, about the apologist, not about Christ. go back to CA homepage and look for How not to share your Catholic Faith, & Search and Rescue. here is your scripture for today, and until this is part of your heart and very being please cease to embarras the Church by debating non-Catholics without it: 1:Cor 13

I see no reason to bust Phil’s chops over a figure of speech.

Scott

 

[RNRobert]

Jermosh:

Rob,

I am lost trying to figure out how this scripture relates to the Eucharist? I can see that it is a point blank reason for a hiarchy though. Any help?

Peace with you
Jermosh

OOPS! I meant to write 1 Corinthinans **11:**28-31, not chapter 12. Serves me right for posting when I should be in bed! Hope this clears it up.

 

[RNRobert]

RNRobert:

Revelation 4 described worship at a heavenly altar.

I forgot to mention: Scott Hahn has an excellent book out entitled The Lamb’s Supper where he correlates the visions in Revelation to the Mass. I highly recommend it!

 

[Jermosh]

RNRobert:

OOPS! I meant to write 1 Corinthinans **11:**28-31, not chapter 12. Serves me right for posting when I should be in bed! Hope this clears it up.

No worries . I am the one to be worried I should have known this already . Thanks to you and Phil.

Peace with you
Jermosh

 

[PhilVaz]

PhilVaz wrongly says << But ask him where his sola scriptura doctrine is found he might point weakly to 2 Tim 3:15-17 or 1 Cor 4:6, then you can go for the kill. >>

PhilVaz meant to say:

But ask him where his sola scriptura doctrine is found he might point weakly to 2 Tim 3:15-17 or 1 Cor 4:6, then you can go for the evangelism, driven by desire to share the fullness of life in Christ, and make 1 Corinthians 13 a part of your heart and very being.

There happy?

 

[chrisg93]

In the heirarchy of Truth The Holy Eucharist is #1 in my book. Sola Scripture, and it’s reverse (the authority of the Catholic Church) are secondary. Without the Catholic Eucharist the Catholic Church is without it’s primary vehicle of salvation, which empties the Church of most of it’s Truth. Conversly, belief in the Holy Eucharist is the gateway to all Truth. All other teachings fall into line if you believe in the true Presence. On a practical level debate on SS is sometimes necessary, but it often degenerates into a confusing free-for-all. In all honesty, the Bible IS sometimes unclear. We should have a stock reply to SS and then go on to defending The Eucharist.
Lutherans believe the Pope is the anti-Christ so that is a different story. If we could get over the anti-Christ thing they could very easily accept the Catholic Eucharist.

 

[Melchior]

tobias:

Upon which Word do we feed?
Scripture- The Lord said ‘You search the Scripture daily because you think you have life in them.’
Or Christ- Rev. ‘The Word of God.’ John ‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life.’
It seems clear to me where our life comes from. I could live the rest of eternity without a Bible, but without Christ, I die tommorrow.

I think you have said up a false dichotomy here.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Romans 10:17
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

You need the Word (inscripturated) and Sacrament. You cannot live the Christian life succesfully without the words of Christ. And you will find them in only one place, scripture. If you didn’t need the Bible, God would not have given it to the church.

You certainly do receive Christ uniquely in the Eucharist. But you also “receive” him in the hearing of His word. You must have both to know him. If you don’t know what he has said how can you know him?

Practically speaking, if you are a parent I dare you to try raising your children succesfully as Christians without instructing them from the scriptures regularly.

Mel

 

[Gratias_Grace]

chrisg93:

I think debate on Sola Scriptura looses as many Catholics as it gains for several reasons…

1. Sola Scriptura is a debate about a sometimes unclear book using the unclear book it self as an authority. That is confusing.
2. SS debate can be made to become very technical and demanding. More demanding than the average person can understand.
3. SS is not in itself a spirtual devotion. It is mostly intellectual.
4. SS is Protestant doctrine. Why would Catholics debate Prot doctrine that isn’t even spirtual?

Debate the Catholic Eucharist instead…

1. I believe that the Catholic Church stands or falls on the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, not Prot SS.
2. The Holy Eucharist is easily defended, by a common person, by the Bible alone. In fact Jesus has already countered any Prot objections to the Catholic Eucharist.
3. The Holy Eucharist is the ultimate spirtual devotion in addition to being intellectual.

Hey chrisg93!

Sola Scriptura :

1. "the unclear " as authoroty: The Bible is an Holy book inspired by God. The biblical canon are made by the chatholic Church inspred by the Holy Spirit. The Bible did not exist before the Church. The Church existed before the the Bible. Therefore the Church has the right to interpret it, not the successors of the protestant reformation.
2. “technical and demanding”. It can be very interstening with the right tools. Try these:

salvationhistory.com/online/Beginner/WalkGen.cfm

1. No comment!
2. “Why would Catholics debate Prot doctrine …?” Because prot doctrine is what the protestants can. They don’t understand catholic dogma and doctrine if we don’t teach them!

The point is to tell them that not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally:

mark-shea.com/msrev.html

Catholic Eucharist:

1. “Catholic Church stands or falls on the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ” Yes, but it also stands on the rock, Peter /Chephas, Jesus founded it on. It is not only Mat 16:18, but also John 21:15-17: FEED MY SHEEP (with the Worth orally and literally):

“So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep”.

1. “The Holy Eucharist is easily defended, by a common person, by the Bible alone. In fact Jesus has already countered any Prot objections to the Catholic Eucharist”. The protestants will not agree. Because they will say Jesus only meant it symbolical.

Even if you show them this link they will doubt about real presence (remember they ar been “indoctrinated” since childhood):

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

1. “The Holy Eucharist” is Gods love for us!

…

I think that catholics must prepare themself for discussion with protestants. It is important that catholics don’t loose faith in the Catholic Church when the protestants come well prepared with their understanding of the Bible.

But it is also important to understand that it is not a win-loose debate. To discuss with fundamentalistic protestants is dificult. **The most important thing is not to debate faith but to live it ** (not sit back angry because protestants were so better trained to discuss).

G.G.

 

[RBushlow]

Jermosh:

. . . 1 Corinthians 12:28-31. . .

Rob,

I am lost trying to figure out how this scripture relates to the Eucharist? I can see that it is a point blank reason for a hiarchy though. Any help?

I think that he probably meant 1 Coninthians 11
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.

Peace with you

 

[sparkle]

chrisg93:

The Holy Eucharist is easily defended, by a common person, by the Bible alone.

Why would you even say this when you know as Catholics, we don’t believe in “Bible alone”? Isn’t this just simply appealing to the Protestant mindset?