Every heresy is against the Catholic Church

[KEP1983]

I’m not sure exactly where to post this, and I haven’t fleshed out my ideas completely yet. But I just wanted to throw this out there.

Nearly every heresy in the history of Christendom has been against the Catholic Church.

If we look at the very early Church, we can see heresies like gnosticism, docetism, arianism, etc were fought against the “one church.” We can agree they called themselves “catholic,” even if you simply use the term “catholic” in the loose sense.

But then we start getting into some real serious heresies. And we nearly always see that the claim is that the Catholic Church fell into heresy, and that someone needed to “restore it to the truth.” Why is it always the Catholic Church that’s attacked here? Why not the Protestants? Or the Eastern Orthodox? Or the Coptics? Or the Muslims? Nope-- the attacks are always against the Catholic Church.

For instance:

Mohammad claimed that the** Church** fell into heresy and that God picked him to restore Christ’s original teachings.

The Eastern Orthodox claimed that the** Pope** fell into heresy and that they needed to restore the Church to its original teaching.

John Wycliffe claimed that the Catholic Church fell into heresy and that it needed to be reformed to its original teaching.

Martin Luther claimed that the **Catholic Church **fell into heresy and it needed reform; and then needed to be restarted afresh to its original teaching.

John Calvin claimed that the Catholic Church fell into heresy and that he needed to restore the Church to its original teaching.

Joseph Smith-- a sect which broke off from Protestantism, not Catholicism-- claimed that the Catholic Church fell into heresy and that God sent him to restore Christs original teachings.

Ellen G White-- founder of 7th Day Adventism, another sect that broke off from Protestantism, not Catholicism-- claimed that the Catholic Church fell into heresy and is the whore of Babylon, and she was restoring Christianity to its truth.

Modernists and post-modernists-- though they don’t believe in truth or heresy-- often see the Catholic Church as the worst institution that needs to be wiped out or changed to be “more modern” so society can “progress” to some age of enlightenment. You don’t see Barack Obama passing mandates that specifically compromise Southern Baptists beliefs, but you see him directly attacking solely Catholic beliefs.

I find it interesting that when you look throughout the history of the Church, various groups always look to the Catholic Church as the source of evil in the world. This ranges from secular humanists to atheists to Mormons to Protestants to Muslims, etc etc.

You very very rarely see the attack directly going against Protestants, for instance. Even groups which broke off from Protestantism look to the Catholic Church as the source of apostasy and evil-- not the Protestants that they broke off from, or the Eastern Orthodox, or the Coptics, etc.

The Catholic Church is always the bulls eye for any heretical group to take aim at-- not Protestantism, not Mormonism, not Islam, and not Eastern Orthodoxy.

And as Jesus said in John 15:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." and in Matt 10:22 “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.”

 

[polytropos]

The Catholic Church is the original, traditional Church. Presumably, a group that breaks away from a Protestant denomination is still largely Protestant. It still largely agrees with that Protestant denomination on why it split from the Church, it is just splitting from the Church in a slightly different way.

Put differently, the Church presents the original interpretation of Jesus’s teachings. In theory, the Church would be the source of that error in interpretation, and therefore would be more responsible than the others that pointed out its errors in interpretation, even if those latter corrections were wrong.

I think, of course, that there is also a reaction against the dominion of the Catholic Church, which has traditionally been the largest, most powerful, and most traditional. It has a top-down power structure. I know this is not quite what you’re referring to, but atheists I know tend to take issue with the pope having moral authority and “deciding” what the whole Church teaches (which is a flawed view, of course, but it colors the way that people perceive the Church). People don’t like institutions that wield influence, and they probably find little purpose in attacking a small group.

 

[tonyrey]

The Catholic Church is the original, traditional Church. Presumably, a group that breaks away from a Protestant denomination is still largely Protestant. It still largely agrees with that Protestant denomination on why it split from the Church, it is just splitting from the Church in a slightly different way.

Put differently, the Church presents the original interpretation of Jesus’s teachings. In theory, the Church would be the source of that error in interpretation, and therefore would be more responsible than the others that pointed out its errors in interpretation, even if those latter corrections were wrong.

I think, of course, that there is also a reaction against the dominion of the Catholic Church, which has traditionally been the largest, most powerful, and most traditional. It has a top-down power structure. I know this is not quite what you’re referring to, but atheists I know tend to take issue with the pope having moral authority and “deciding” what the whole Church teaches (which is a flawed view, of course, but it colors the way that people perceive the Church). People don’t like institutions that wield influence, and they probably find little purpose in attacking a small group.

:thumbsup:The Catholic Church is the only Church that dates from the time of the Apostles with its succession of Bishops of Rome from St Peter to Pope Francis.

 

[Steveabrous]

It’s because Satan HATES the Catholic church because it is the ONE TRUE CHURCH. He has been sending all these false religions to cause confusion.

I’ll go one more. When the sh*t really hits the fan (like a terror attack) who does the world look to? The Pope.

If someone is truely possessed who does everyone expect to do something about it, regardless of the person’s religion? The Catholic Church.

And this one has been knawing at me. Why is it the Catholic church that has to change it’s positions on Homosexual marriage, women ordination, abortion, birth control and priest’s marrying?
No other religious organization is under nearly this much pressure and attack from the secular world to change it’s positions.

Why not just be happy with the Episcopal church? They certainly look Catholic enough. They can claim Apostolic succession with a straight face (albeit they have to go through the Catholic church), and they have bowed to the popular culture on every issue. But no one cares. They want the real Catholic church to change

 

[LegoGE1947]

It’s because Satan HATES the Catholic church because it is the ONE TRUE CHURCH. He has been sending all these false religions to cause confusion.

I’ll go one more. When the sh*t really hits the fan (like a terror attack) who does the world look to? The Pope.

If someone is truely possessed who does everyone expect to do something about it, regardless of the person’s religion? The Catholic Church.

And this one has been knawing at me. Why is it the Catholic church that has to change it’s positions on Homosexual marriage, women ordination, abortion, birth control and priest’s marrying?
No other religious organization is under nearly this much pressure and attack from the secular world to change it’s positions.

Why not just be happy with the Episcopal church? They certainly look Catholic enough. They can claim Apostolic succession with a straight face (albeit they have to go through the Catholic church), and they have bowed to the popular culture on every issue. But no one cares. They want the real Catholic church to change

Also the heresies are always started by a member of the clergy. Never by a lay person!

 

[Steveabrous]

Also the heresies are always started by a member of the clergy. Never by a lay person!

Yes, but Anglicanism was started by the King.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Yes, but Anglicanism was started by the King.

Perhaps I could say most all! I’m however amazed that he had time to do that when he always had a turkey leg he was chewing on!

 

[Steveabrous]

Perhaps I could say most all! I’m however amazed that he had time to do that when he always had a turkey leg he was chewing on!

LOL!

 

[LegoGE1947]

Yes, but Anglicanism was started by the King.

I got this from an email to Simon Rafe an apologist and producer at church militant.tv ( Quote)

“Anglicanism was really the product of Cranmer, an Archbishop, and other clergymen. Henry didn’t really start the heresy – he simply wanted to obtain political power and wealth; the actual heresy (the deviation from doctrine) was really the work of clergymen,” Hope this clears that up. It did for me. Blessings

 

[KEP1983]

I don’t think this is quite correct. The different groups in early Christianity–including Ebionite Christians, Marcion Christians, or Gnostic Christians–weren’t considered heretical at the time. They were all just different Christian groups with different beliefs, each group having their own scriptures.
Not until around the 4th Century and the time of the Council of Nicea, when the creeds were being formulated, was it then decided these groups were now “heretical” because they did not fit anymore.
“Heretical” simply meaning, of course, a departure from established beliefs

The earliest use of the term “Catholic” that we know of is in the year 107 by Ignatius of Antioch.

Correct, and St Ignatius uses the term “Catholic” Church in opposition to the gnostics.

So the first heresy within the Church was between the Catholics and the gnostics.

So my point still stands.

 

[KEP1983]

And this one has been knawing at me. Why is it the Catholic church that has to change it’s positions on Homosexual marriage, women ordination, abortion, birth control and priest’s marrying?
No other religious organization is under nearly this much pressure and attack from the secular world to change it’s positions.

Exactly my point! You don’t see CNN and MSNBC attacking, say, John MacArthur or RC Sproul about needing to accept women preachers, for instance.

The attack is always first and foremost against the Catholic Church. Any attacks from sexular humanists against Protestants is just a secondary spill-over from its initial attack against the Catholic Church.

 

[Steveabrous]

Correct, and St Ignatius uses the term “Catholic” Church in opposition to the gnostics.
So the first heresy within the Church was between the Catholics and the gnostics.
So my point still stands.

Yes, each group thought the other groups were heretical.
The Ebionites, for example, thought Apostle Paul was a heretic so did not follow his teachings. They focused on the gospel of Matthew…making their group more Jewish than the others.

actually the first heretical group was the circumcise group talked about in the bible

 

[KEP1983]

Correct, and St Ignatius uses the term “Catholic” Church in opposition to the gnostics.
So the first heresy within the Church was between the Catholics and the gnostics.
So my point still stands.

Yes, each group thought the other groups were heretical.
The Ebionites, for example, thought Apostle Paul was a heretic so did not follow his teachings. They focused on the gospel of Matthew…making their group more Jewish than the others.

Correct. And when the Apostles and their descendants came together to decide who was heretical and who was not, who did they decide was Catholic and who was not?

It’s important to note that none of the original apostles were Gnostics.

And it’s also important to note that Gnosticism existed before Christianity as a Pagan religion, mostly from Greece and Egypt. Christianity-- Jesus and His followers-- were Jewish.

So yes, it was most certainly Catholics vs Gnostics.

 

[Portofino]

The Catholic Church is the original, traditional Church.

That may be true, though there is still a debatable gap between the earliest church and the ministry of Jesus.

It’s unclear whether it makes sense to say “Jesus was Catholic” or even, frankly, that “Peter was Catholic.” They certainly weren’t Roman Catholic, in the historical sense.

Obviously, many rightly point that out that Jesus was Jewish, in terms of his own religious background. He ate kosher, and observed Sabbath on Saturday.

What I think also argues in favor of Protestantism – potentially, at least – is that, frankly, the “original” is not necessarily the “best” or even the most “true.” It takes an additional belief that this is the case; it is not obvious or logically necessary.

Take the case of a restaurant. A restaurant serving superlative cuisine 10 years ago, may not be serving superlative cuisine today. Perhaps it is under new management.

The modern-day Italians of Rome can say, “we can trace our ancestry, in unbroken succession, to the inhabitants of the Roman empire. We are the modern day Romans.”

And someone else, with a less literal understanding, can say, "actually, if you want to know who the real modern-day Romans are, look to the United States.

Thus, I don’t think it’s enough to say, “modern-day Catholicism is closest to the spirit of Christ because it can trace its lineage, in unbroken succession, to Christ’s apostles.” That takes an additional belief that that truth would be guaranteed through historical succession, just as – in a different respect – one would believe that the quality of a restaurant’s food is guaranteed by the original master chef having chosen his successor, and so on, and so on, in unbroken succession, so that the current iteration of the restaurant could proudly claim, “we were established 100 years ago and have been continuously in business all this time. Any restaurant that opened 50 years ago cannot claim to be serving food at the calibre of that 100 years ago restaurant. We are closer, and we can prove it.”

Thus, I well understand the concept that , in principle, Catholicism could be the original Church – historically – yet that this does not guarantee that it is the one true church, the church whose teachings are closest to the original teachings and intent of Christ.

Jesus himself didn’t think in terms of literal succession, biologically speaking. He said, “who are my mothers and brothers? My real mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.” By that he meant that those who are most closely related to him are not those who are biologically closest, but spiritually closest.

Just so, one can argue that those who are spiritually closest to Christ, are not necessarily those who are historically closest, through an ultimately worldly chain succession – not biological, this time, but historical and “administrative.”

Thus, the modern-day Italians are not necessarily closest to the spirit of Rome, and Catholicism is not necessarily – in principle, at least – closest to the spirit of Christ (not, at least, on account of historical continuity alone, or this idea of being “still the original, still the best”).

 

[polytropos]

My argument primarily was that heresies criticize chiefly that Catholic Church because, of the extant Churches at the time of most heresies, the Catholic Church purports to be the most traditional voice of Jesus’s ministry. Whether or not it is, is of course a subject of debate, but from the perspective of heretics its claim to be so has always made it the church most logical to react against.

As to whether the Catholic Church does best represent the intentions of Jesus, I agree that there is an element of faith involved in the transition from his ministry to the early church to the Roman Catholic Church. It is my belief that the Catholic Church’s claims are most plausible, which is certainly something that can be and has been argued. Part of my reasoning is based upon the belief that an omnipotent God made flesh would not fail to properly establish his Church until, 1,500 years later, a mortal (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, whoever) finally fixed it.

There is also substantial reason to believe that Protestantism arose from a shift in metaphysical assumptions that arose in the 13th century but are not substantiated by either a Judaic or Catholic interpretation of the Bible. The existence of God had always been thought of as analogical to the existence of physical things, ie. it is not quite the same to say “That book is sitting on the table” and “God is reigning in the heavens.” The physical world was associated with “being” or ens while God was associated with “to be” or esse.

John Duns Scotus in the 13th century argued that God’s existence was not esse but ens, ie. that God did not just act in and through the universe but was a being present in the universe. This is the philosophical assumption that many reformers acted under and which made transubstantiation seem impossible (because if God is a physical being in the universe, then he cannot be in the substance of the host without the host taking on a new appearance).

One can debate whether the Jews and early Catholics were correct in taking esse and ens by analogy. But I do think that there is a greater “closeness” between the Catholic Church and the teachings of Jesus than there is between the various heresies and his teachings. I would go so far as to say not just historical closeness but spiritual closeness - although I’m sure Protestants would disagree with me.

 

[sennincatholic]

I’m not sure exactly where to post this, and I haven’t fleshed out my ideas completely yet. But I just wanted to throw this out there.

Nearly every heresy in the history of Christendom has been against the Catholic Church.

If we look at the very early Church, we can see heresies like gnosticism, docetism, arianism, etc were fought against the “one church.” We can agree they called themselves “catholic,” even if you simply use the term “catholic” in the loose sense.

But then we start getting into some real serious heresies. And we nearly always see that the claim is that the Catholic Church fell into heresy, and that someone needed to “restore it to the truth.” Why is it always the Catholic Church that’s attacked here? Why not the Protestants? Or the Eastern Orthodox? Or the Coptics? Or the Muslims? Nope-- the attacks are always against the Catholic Church.

For instance:

Mohammad claimed that the** Church** fell into heresy and that God picked him to restore Christ’s original teachings.

The Eastern Orthodox claimed that the** Pope** fell into heresy and that they needed to restore the Church to its original teaching.

John Wycliffe claimed that the Catholic Church fell into heresy and that it needed to be reformed to its original teaching.

Martin Luther claimed that the **Catholic Church **fell into heresy and it needed reform; and then needed to be restarted afresh to its original teaching.

John Calvin claimed that the Catholic Church fell into heresy and that he needed to restore the Church to its original teaching.

Joseph Smith-- a sect which broke off from Protestantism, not Catholicism-- claimed that the Catholic Church fell into heresy and that God sent him to restore Christs original teachings.

Ellen G White-- founder of 7th Day Adventism, another sect that broke off from Protestantism, not Catholicism-- claimed that the Catholic Church fell into heresy and is the whore of Babylon, and she was restoring Christianity to its truth.

Modernists and post-modernists-- though they don’t believe in truth or heresy-- often see the Catholic Church as the worst institution that needs to be wiped out or changed to be “more modern” so society can “progress” to some age of enlightenment. You don’t see Barack Obama passing mandates that specifically compromise Southern Baptists beliefs, but you see him directly attacking solely Catholic beliefs.

I find it interesting that when you look throughout the history of the Church, various groups always look to the Catholic Church as the source of evil in the world. This ranges from secular humanists to atheists to Mormons to Protestants to Muslims, etc etc.

You very very rarely see the attack directly going against Protestants, for instance. Even groups which broke off from Protestantism look to the Catholic Church as the source of apostasy and evil-- not the Protestants that they broke off from, or the Eastern Orthodox, or the Coptics, etc.

The Catholic Church is always the bulls eye for any heretical group to take aim at-- not Protestantism, not Mormonism, not Islam, and not Eastern Orthodoxy.

And as Jesus said in John 15:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." and in Matt 10:22 “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.”

The reason the Catholic Church is the victim of heretic attacks is because it was founded by Jesus Christ.Another reason is because of our belief in the Eucharist!(read John6:66).Those Jews seized being Jesus’ disciples because they considered his teachings on the Eucharist very dificult to sswallow.
To conclude…the Catholic Church is a SIGN OF CONTRADICITON because Jesus Christ…Who founded this church was also a SIGN OF CONTRADICTION.

 

[Portofino]

My argument primarily was that heresies criticize chiefly that Catholic Church because, of the extant Churches at the time of most heresies, the Catholic Church purports to be the most traditional voice of Jesus’s ministry. Whether or not it is, is of course a subject of debate, but from the perspective of heretics its claim to be so has always made it the church most logical to react against…

Duly noted; looking again at your message, I see that this was indeed the point you were making

There is also substantial reason to believe that Protestantism arose from a shift in metaphysical assumptions that arose in the 13th century but are not substantiated by either a Judaic or Catholic interpretation of the Bible. The existence of God had always been thought of as analogical to the existence of physical things, ie. it is not quite the same to say “That book is sitting on the table” and “God is reigning in the heavens.” The physical world was associated with “being” or ens while God was associated with “to be” or esse

John Duns Scotus in the 13th century argued that God’s existence was not esse but ens, ie. that God did not just act in and through the universe but was a being present in the universe This is the philosophical assumption that many reformers acted under and which made transubstantiation seem impossible (because if God is a physical being in the universe, then he cannot be in the substance of the host without the host taking on a new appearance)…

That is interesting, I was not aware of that historical distinction. In my admittedly somewhat random readings of arguments against transsubstantiation, I did come across one argument – from Calvin, I believe – which invoked Christ’s line “the poor you will always have with you, but I will not always be with you”, as well as – if I am remembering correctly – the statement, “remember I will be with you always, even until the end of time.” It was clear to Calvin – again, if I am not mistaken – that “I will not always be with you” referred to his physical, bodily presence on earth. However, “I will be with you always, until the end of time” was referring to his spiritual omnipresence (“wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am with them”).

Thus, the main Protestant argument (even though there were nuances of difference between Luther and Calvin on the subect, just to name two) was that Christ was spiritually present in the Eucharist as, indeed, he is present everywhere; in fact, they went even further, and maintained that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, in particular, in a way that he is not present everywhere.

Thus someone like Luther or Calvin – as I understand it – believed in the “real presence”, but believed that the real presence was spiritual (echoing Christ’s words, “God is a spirit, and those that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth.” Spiritual did not mean less real, as I understand it; if anything, they believed the opposite (“it is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing”).

The physical body of Christ – the flesh, blood, and bone – ascended into heaven, and would not come again until the end of time, hence the accuracy of Christ’s saying, “the poor you will always have with you, but me you will not always with you.” When the body of Christ left this earth, when he ascended into heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit (Pentecost).

From my own readings on the subject, I also see that most of the Reformers were troubled by the way in which Catholic layersons – presumably – were in danger of making the Euchrarist into an idol of sorts. So, comparatively speaking, these Reformers wanted to focus on the faith with which one partakes of the bread in which Christ is really and truly present, rather than on the bread itself. It was more important to them, I suppose, that the faith be focused on Christ, and not so much on this notion that the bread is Jesus “in the flesh.”

Perhaps it’s semantic, as well – Luther, as I understand it, believed in the real presence of the spiritual body of Christ, in the Eucharist. It’s the physical body of Christ that he believed was not omnipresent, even though the spiritual body could be omnipresent.

In a sense, I think most Catholics can appreciate this logic, as well – the Holy Spirit is everywhere, and thus Christ is everywhere. But the body of Christ ascended into heaven, and will “come again” at the end of time. In one sense, it is already here; in another sense, it clearly isn’t, since – when it was here – it could be seen and touched, and was walking around and talking to people, laying hands on them, etc.

 

[sennincatholic]

Duly noted; looking again at your message, I see that this was indeed the point you were making

That is interesting, I was not aware of that historical distinction. In my admittedly somewhat random readings of arguments against transsubstantiation, I did come across one argument – from Calvin, I believe – which invoked Christ’s line “the poor you will always have with you, but I will not always be with you”, as well as – if I am remembering correctly – the statement, “remember I will be with you always, even until the end of time.” It was clear to Calvin – again, if I am not mistaken – that “I will not always be with you” referred to his physical, bodily presence on earth. However, “I will be with you always, until the end of time” was referring to his spiritual omnipresence (“wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am with them”).

Thus, the main Protestant argument (even though there were nuances of difference between Luther and Calvin on the subect, just to name two) was that Christ was spiritually present in the Eucharist as, indeed, he is present everywhere; in fact, they went even further, and maintained that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, in particular, in a way that he is not present everywhere.

Thus someone like Luther or Calvin – as I understand it – believed in the “real presence”, but believed that the real presence was spiritual (echoing Christ’s words, “God is a spirit, and those that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth.” Spiritual did not mean less real, as I understand it; if anything, they believed the opposite (“it is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing”).

The physical body of Christ – the flesh, blood, and bone – ascended into heaven, and would not come again until the end of time, hence the accuracy of Christ’s saying, “the poor you will always have with you, but me you will not always with you.” When the body of Christ left this earth, when he ascended into heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit (Pentecost).

From my own readings on the subject, I also see that most of the Reformers were troubled by the way in which Catholic layersons – presumably – were in danger of making the Euchrarist into an idol of sorts. So, comparatively speaking, these Reformers wanted to focus on the faith with which one partakes of the bread in which Christ is really and truly present, rather than on the bread itself. It was more important to them, I suppose, that the faith be focused on Christ, and not so much on this notion that the bread is Jesus “in the flesh.”

Perhaps it’s semantic, as well – Luther, as I understand it, believed in the real presence of the spiritual body of Christ, in the Eucharist. It’s the physical body of Christ that he believed was not omnipresent, even though the spiritual body could be omnipresent.

In a sense, I think most Catholics can appreciate this logic, as well – the Holy Spirit is everywhere, and thus Christ is everywhere. But the body of Christ ascended into heaven, and will “come again” at the end of time. In one sense, it is already here; in another sense, it clearly isn’t, since – when it was here – it could be seen and touched, and was walking around and talking to people, laying hands on them, etc.

You make a good point!
However it will be good to read John6:48-70. to appreciate what Jesus Christ Himself said on this very sensitive issue.

 

[Portofino]

You make a good point!
However it will be good to read John6:48-70. to appreciate what Jesus Christ Himself said on this very sensitive issue.

I confess that – though not Protestant myself, nor a practicing Christian – I am sympathetic to the Protestant argument, which they’ve even made by quoting the gospel of John itself.

They hang their hat, obviously, on all of the many ways in which Christ very systematically drew the attention of his hearers from the literal to the metaphorical, and from the physical to the spiritual, even as his disciples or earliest hearers couldn’t help but understand his words in the literal, “worldly” sense.

For instance (pardon not citing chapter and verse, but these verses are rather well-known):

–Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

–Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Then his disciples said to each other, "Could someone have brought him food?"
“My food,” said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

–Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
“*How can someone be born when they are old?” *Nicodemus asked. “*Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”*Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

–“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you–they are full of the Spirit and life.”

–As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you nursed!’ But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’”

–"Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

–“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth * goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.”*

 

[sennincatholic]

I confess that – though not Protestant myself, nor a practicing Christian – I am sympathetic to the Protestant argument, which they’ve even made by quoting the gospel of John itself.

They hang their hat, obviously, on all of the many ways in which Christ very systematically drew the attention of his hearers from the literal to the metaphorical, and from the physical to the spiritual, even as his disciples or earliest hearers couldn’t help but understand his words in the literal, “worldly” sense.

For instance (pardon not citing chapter and verse, but these verses are rather well-known):

–Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

–Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Then his disciples said to each other, "Could someone have brought him food?"
“My food,” said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

–Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
“*How can someone be born when they are old?” *Nicodemus asked. “*Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”*Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

–“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you–they are full of the Spirit and life.”

–As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you nursed!’ But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’”

–"Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

–“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth * goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.”*

Exactly!
You’ve brought up many pertinent points which show instances where Jesus directed the attention of the disciples/jews away from the literal/physical to the spiritual.Good!
However…John 6 is different.
John 6:51-54
-…The bread I shall give is my flesh…and I will give it for the life of the world.
-…The Jews were arguing among themselves…“How can this man give us flesh to eat?”
-…So Jesus replied…"Truly…I say to you…if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood…you have no life in you.The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives eternal life…and i will raise him up on the last day…"
The bolded part clearly showed that after the jews started arguing among themselves about the “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” statement Christ did not correct them by giving them a spiritual intepretation of his statement.He instead reaffirmed even more strongly the literal/physical “eat My flesh and drink My blood” statement.
This…in my opinion showed that he wanted them to interprete it literally and that is why in John 6:66 many of his disciples left and Jesus did not bother calling them back…