How do I answer the following question...?

[MarkInOregon]

And don’t forget to show him where in scripture it says that the bread and wine turn into Jesus’ blood and also show him Hebrews 1:3 and then explain how Matthew 24:23 relates to that.

Oh, and most importantly, since he’s Protestant, don’t forget to dismiss everything he says and then condescendingly tell him that he just doesn’t understand what the Bible says.

You mean like Matthew 26:26-28 for example?

We might also show him John 6:48-58

You’ve already been given other passages from St Paul that would lend support.

We could point to the early Church and its understanding of the Eucharist – surely these people some of whom were taught and commissioned directly by the apostles would know what Christ meant–much better than we do 2000 years removed?

This was the clear teaching from the earliest times–the “its only symbolic” is a much newer understanding and teaching–and one that does not seem to be supported by scripture.

And can we please dispense with the woe is me attitude–it would seem that protestants such as yourself are just as good at coming here and condescendingly telling us we don’t understand the Bible and dismissing everything we say – as evidenced by your post above that I am responding to. Of course this is somewhat comical since it is Catholics who paistakingly preserved and studied the sacred scriptures since the time they were composed.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Danny_Clover]

And can we please dispense with the woe is me attitude–it would seem that protestants such as yourself are just as good at coming here and condescendingly telling us we don’t understand the Bible and dismissing everything we say – as evidenced by your post above that I am responding to.

Actually, not only have I not done this, I even asked you follow up questions precisely to give you a chance to explain your beliefs.

Well I can’t lie, I’m more than a little saddened

And I’m greatly disappointed that all you Catholics can do is to call names and make snide remarks about my religion, even when those things are completely unprovoked.

But I’m sure we’ll both get over it. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a two year old who wants to go swimming (and who, ironically, knows how to be polite better than the alleged grownups in this thread).

 

[crazzeto]

And I’m greatly disappointed that all you Catholics can do is to call names and make snide remarks about my religion, even when those things are completely unprovoked.

But I’m sure we’ll both get over it. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a two year old who wants to go swimming (and who, ironically, knows how to be polite better than the alleged grownups in this thread).

I’m terribly sorry that you feel like you have been slighted some how, certainly I haven’t tried to belittle you. If something I posted offended you I’m sorry. This thread does appear though, in the Apologetics forum and the people in this forum tend to be of a type and mindset which enjoys the theological battle lines. Thus there is a certain bluntness that probably you wouldn’t find in other forums.

Anyway, certainly I hope you will meditate upon the scriptures, particularly John 6 and as it relates to Deuteronomy. Again, God bless.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, not only have I not done this, I even asked you follow up questions precisely to give you a chance to explain your beliefs.

Actually, in your very first post on this thread, you came in with a chip on your shoulder. Up to that point, nobody had said anything at all to you about anything.

And I’m greatly disappointed that all you Catholics can do is to call names and make snide remarks about my religion, even when those things are completely unprovoked.

Where in this thread did anybody do this?

 

[Returning_Home]

It has always been Jesus, under the appearances of bread and wine.

So I just have to take your word for it? That is, of course, the only support for this. Had Jesus wanted us to literally eat him, why didn’t he cut off pieces of himself for the apostles to eat? No, he took bread and said “This is my body.” Since bread is water, yeast and flour, it can’t possibly be skin, bone, and sinew.

 

[crazzeto]

So I just have to take your word for it? That is, of course, the only support for this. Had Jesus wanted us to literally eat him, why didn’t he cut off pieces of himself for the apostles to eat? No, he took bread and said “This is my body.” Since bread is water, yeast and flour, it can’t possibly be skin, bone, and sinew.

Have you read the entirty of this thread? I cover John 6 & Dueteronomy directly. Dr. Hahn has a terrific discourse on the Eucharist which you can get on CD from Light House media as well. Two discs to look for are How to bring home fallen away Catholics and his CD on the Eucharist. In it, he explains is process of discovery of the real presense in the Eucharist through an understanding of the ancient passover rituals, in comparison to the last supper and passion discourses in Matthew and John.

I’d also recommend you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist. Listen, I woudn’t ask you to consider the real presense on my word, or the word of any other poster here alone. But I would ask you to consider it on the authority of the Catholic Church.

See here for the CCC on the Eucharist:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.shtml

God bless you,

 

[losh14]

And don’t forget to show him where in scripture it says that the bread and wine turn into Jesus’ blood and also show him Hebrews 1:3 and then explain how Matthew 24:23 relates to that.

Oh, and most importantly, since he’s Protestant, don’t forget to dismiss everything he says and then condescendingly tell him that he just doesn’t understand what the Bible says.

Danny, your frustration is evident and I applaud you for keeping dialogue with us Catholics here. It’s not always fun to be outside of your element, so thank you for participating with us.

Bear in mind, when the OP is talking to his Protestant friend, he is explaining Catholic doctrine and practice. In this instance, he must necessarily disagree with what Protestants teach because this is a point on which Catholics and Protestants disagree. How he does it is another matter - and your point is well-taken that no one appreciates condescension.

 

[losh14]

After which, He gave them a piece of bread, not a piece of His flesh.

Here’s the interesting thing. This was a Passover meal but there was no lamb eaten at the meal - the bread and the wine were blessed and passed, but the Lamb was sacrificed the next day. That was when Our Lord gave His Flesh and Blood for us. It is this Flesh and Blood that is made present at Mass.

 

[losh14]

This is incorrect. There is no duality happening.

The appearances (including the tastes and effects) of the bread and wine remain, but their substances (that which makes them to be “bread” and “wine”) is gone, and has been replaced with the substance of the living Christ - Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Jim, to clarify, it’s not duality that I’m suggesting but rather that the properties of bread and wine remain while the substance of them changes/

The language first used to describe Transubstantiation reflects philosophic language that all things have both substance and properties. Substance being what something really is, properties being how we experience that substance. The specie remain bread and wine in terms of how we experience them (in having the familiar properties) though their substance has wholly changed. I thought this was a better way to help the OP explain why real wine was used, and that it’s not an either/or of using wine or the Blood.

 

[Danny_Clover]

losh14:

Bear in mind, when the OP is talking to his Protestant friend, he is explaining Catholic doctrine and practice. In this instance, he must necessarily disagree with what Protestants teach because this is a point on which Catholics and Protestants disagree. How he does it is another matter - and your point is well-taken that no one appreciates condescension.

I would never be a member of any group that does not allow me to think for myself or to conceede a point to someone when they’re right.

Even we fundamentalists will admit that an atheist is right when he makes a valid point.

 

[Danny_Clover]

Here’s the interesting thing. This was a Passover meal but there was no lamb eaten at the meal - the bread and the wine were blessed and passed, but the Lamb was sacrificed the next day. That was when Our Lord gave His Flesh and Blood for us. It is this Flesh and Blood that is made present at Mass.

Sorry, not wasting my time. You’ve already admitted that you’re not willing to listen to anything I have to say.

 

[losh14]

Look, I realize I’m a Protestant and, as such, you all think I’m a moronic scumbag who couldn’t possibly have any clue what I’m talking about,

What has someone said to you to make you feel this way? Absolutely not. Danny you’re a brother in Christ and I hope to meet you at the Feast if not before. I can tell you care about your faith and you’re referencing Scripture and rhetoric to make your point. Please calm down - we’re not out to get you. We’re all here to discuss, learn and evangelize one another towards Christ - and if any isn’t, let them consider this a scolding.

Most of us here are close friends with Protestants - some are married to them. At my wedding, I had an evangelical, a Presbyterian, a Methodist and a Jew stand up for me. I regularly hang out with a group of Calvinist seminarians and we have a really good time talking faith over beer or coffee.

The internet can be a harsh place because anonymity allows people to feel like they can get away with acting capriciously. If anyone has bothered you as such here, let the Admins know. They want good discussions here - they don’t want views to be compelled or silenced (unless, of course, they’re defamatory or inflammatory).

but simply saying “no it’s not” because you can’t bear to admit that a Protestant pointed out that your fellow Catholic made a logical fallacy doesn’t make it so.

Consider this just a friendly correction, not a rebuke of your ability to make a point… For the record, Luigi was using a rhetorical device that was either Rhetorical Question or Begging the Question. Not necessarily an error, just a device. It’s only Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc when the attempt is made to tie chronology to causation without mechanism. In other words, p.h.e.p.c. is meant to avoid explaining how point A leads to point B because there’s no reason to tie point A to point B. That’s why p.h.e.p.c. is a rhetorical error.

If your fellow Catholic says “Jesus said something, they left, therefore, they must not have understood”, that is a textbook example of post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

I think I see where Luigi’s explanation for their leaving (Jn 6:66) and your explanation for their leaving both come from. Luigi’s is that those who left did not understand (Jn 6:60), is it possible that yours is either that those who left did not have sufficient faith (ie, “caused them to stumble” Jn 6:61,64) or is it that those who left were not called or predestined (Jn 6:65)?

In that light, neither Luigi nor you were committing an error, but rather using exegesis (Scripture to explain Scripture). Both of you used rhetorical devices - which is fine, we all do it and it keeps us from sounding like Wikipedia - that did not sufficiently explain your point to the other.

Now, this is getting to be an interesting conversation on the meaning of some passages that are important to all Christians, especially to Catholics, so may I ask that all sides drop hominem references and we simply stick to material?

 

[losh14]

So I just have to take your word for it? That is, of course, the only support for this. Had Jesus wanted us to literally eat him, why didn’t he cut off pieces of himself for the apostles to eat? No, he took bread and said “This is my body.” Since bread is water, yeast and flour, it can’t possibly be skin, bone, and sinew.

Your question is well-taken. It’s not a doctrine that comes easily. I think jim and crazetto have both posted passages from Jn 6 and 1 Cor, so let me offer something additional.

What gets me about Jn 6 (as some call it, “The Bread of Life dialogue”), is its parallel composition to Jn 3 (where we first encounter the phrase “born again”). Jesus states the necessity of being born again and of eating His Body, those who hear doubt and say “how can this be?”, Jesus affirms it again with the words “truly, truly I say to you” (amen amen, lego soi/umen). This parallelism is a literary device - often found in oral tradition - that indicates something very important is going to be said. While the language is metaphorical, that does not mean the reference is merely symbolic. Human language often fails to convey Divine Truth. This is why Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors - rather than like a theology text. This is why it is written that Joshua bade the sun to stand still - rather than provide a complex account of astrodynamics and heliocentrism.

If we take being ‘born again’ as a command - or more precisely, being ‘born from above’ (gennethe anothen), we must also take “unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood you will not have life in you” as a command.

 

[losh14]

I would never be a member of any group that does not allow me to think for myself or to conceede a point to someone when they’re right.

Even we fundamentalists will admit that an atheist is right when he makes a valid point.

Danny, I did not say that. Let me reiterate:

When a Catholic explains Catholic doctrine to a Protestant, if Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine disagree, then the Catholic must disagree with the Protestant because of what is contained in the doctrine. This isn’t a matter of control but of content.

If you are a member of a church you agree with the church’s teachings, at least enough to be a member. Let’s say that your church believes that baptism is only valid in the name of Jesus alone. As a Catholic, I agree with the Catholic church’s teaching that baptism must be in the Trinitarian formula (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). If I did not believe this, I wouldnt’ be Catholic. Thus when you ask me why Catholics baptize in the Trinity, my explanation will disagree with what you believe.

And if I agree with the Church, then I do not agree that doctrine is correct where it opposes teachings that I believe in. This is not about freedom of thought - if you are a member of a Church, you accept the doctrine. If you don’t accept the doctrine, why would you be a member?

Please let me know if this doesn’t help clarify.

 

[losh14]

Sorry, not wasting my time. You’ve already admitted that you’re not willing to listen to anything I have to say.

On the contrary I invited you to share your thoughts. Have a nice day.

Shark (OP) - did you get an answer to your question about how to respond to your Baptist friend’s question? Did your friend have any followups, or do you? Was what was said here helpful to you?

 

[Danny_Clover]

Danny, I did not say that. Let me reiterate:

When a Catholic explains Catholic doctrine to a Protestant, if Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine disagree, then the Catholic must disagree with the Protestant because of what is contained in the doctrine. This isn’t a matter of control but of content.

…regardless of whether the Protestant is right or not.

If you are a member of a church you agree with the church’s teachings, at least enough to be a member.

And yet, if my church is wrong or if someone else makes a valid point about our beliefs, I can still acknowledge those things.

And if I agree with the Church, then I do not agree that doctrine is correct where it opposes teachings that I believe in. This is not about freedom of thought - if you are a member of a Church, you accept the doctrine. If you don’t accept the doctrine, why would you be a member?

I’m sure you’re going to tell me that I don’t really know what the Bible says, but my Bible says that we’re to test all the spirits and all of the teachings we hear, even those coming from the church.

The Galatian church was wrong. Paul rebuked them. He didn’t say, “Hey, the church taught it so it can’t be questioned in any way”. The Corinthians were wrong. Paul rebuked them. He didn’t say, “Hey, the church decided not to discipline the guy who was sleeping with his mother in law, so they must be right”.

What’s more, it’s not just about being honest enough to admit that your church may be wrong, but you’re not even honest enough to admit when a non-Catholic makes a valid point about scriptures that you claim to believe.

I’m sorry, but there’s simply no way to have a conversation with a person like that.

That’s why your only defense is to say that we can’t know what we’re talking about because: a) we don’t have the fullness of the faith, b) we don’t have the Magesterium, c) the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, d) our churches are not legitimate.

It’s just like in the other thread where you chose to denigrate one of our most cherished and sacred doctrines as nothing more than a “ecstatic and emotional experience”. I could explain to you what we believe it is, but you wouldn’t accept that.

 

[Danny_Clover]

On the contrary I invited you to share your thoughts. Have a nice day.

Actually, you admitted at least twice that because I’m a Protestant, you’re not even allowed to entertain the thought that I could be right.

losh14:

if Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine disagree, then the Catholic must disagree with the Protestant because of what is contained in the doctrine

losh14:

[the Catholic] must necessarily disagree with what Protestants teach because this is a point on which Catholics and Protestants disagree

 

[losh14]

And yet, if my church is wrong or if someone else makes a valid point about our beliefs, I can still acknowledge those things.

I thought I had acknowledged your point and attempted to understand it further a few posts back, even pulling out Scripture that I thought you might have used in basing your point:

I think I see where Luigi’s explanation for their leaving (Jn 6:66) and your explanation for their leaving both come from. Luigi’s is that those who left did not understand (Jn 6:60), is it possible that yours is either that those who left did not have sufficient faith (ie, “caused them to stumble” Jn 6:61,64) or is it that those who left were not called or predestined (Jn 6:65)?

In that light, neither Luigi nor you were committing an error, but rather using exegesis (Scripture to explain Scripture). Both of you used rhetorical devices - which is fine, we all do it and it keeps us from sounding like Wikipedia - that did not sufficiently explain your point to the other.

I’m sure you’re going to tell me that I don’t really know what the Bible says

Hadn’t crossed my mind at all.

, but my Bible says that we’re to test all the spirits and all of the teachings we hear, even those coming from the church.

Do you think I haven’t tested? Danny, I was challenged in 2002 by evangelical friends to either embrace Scripture or the Catholic Church - and it was posited as an either/or, never the twain shall meet, question. I studied and I returned to our evangelical Bible Study affirmed in my faith and that the Catholic Church was where the Gospel was best understood, taught and lived. I tested the Catholic Church, as I tested the New Wine Fellowship, as I tested the Christian student group I was a part of at the time, as I tested the Church of Springfield, as I tested the Baptist Church, as I tested Christ Lutheran Church, as I tested First Presbyterian Church.

The Galatian church was wrong. Paul rebuked them. He didn’t say, “Hey, the church taught it so it can’t be questioned in any way”. The Corinthians were wrong. Paul rebuked them. He didn’t say, “Hey, the church decided not to discipline the guy who was sleeping with his mother in law, so they must be right”.

I said

Let me reiterate: If you are a member of a church you agree with the church’s teachings, at least enough to be a member… If I did not believe this, I wouldnt’ be Catholic. And if I agree with the Church, then I do not agree that doctrine is correct where it opposes teachings that I believe in. This is not about freedom of thought - if you are a member of a Church, you accept the doctrine. If you don’t accept the doctrine, why would you be a member?

What’s more, it’s not just about being honest enough to admit that your church may be wrong, but you’re not even honest enough to admit when a non-Catholic makes a valid point about scriptures that you claim to believe.

Danny, I take offense that you question my honesty. I offered you two passages in Scripture from where I thought your point originated. I asked you to help me understand your points.

And I do believe the Scriptures, as I’m sure you do as well. That does not mean we agree.

I’m sorry, but there’s simply no way to have a conversation with a person like that.

As you already pointed out,

Sorry, not wasting my time.

That’s why your only defense is to say that we can’t know what we’re talking about because: a) we don’t have the fullness of the faith, b) we don’t have the Magesterium, c) the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, d) our churches are not legitimate.

I have said none of these things. I do not judge your faith, nor your relationship with the Lord, nor the sincerity with which you believe.

It’s just like in the other thread where you chose to denigrate one of our most cherished and sacred doctrines as nothing more than a “ecstatic and emotional experience”. I could explain to you what we believe it is, but you wouldn’t accept that.

For the benefit of those who are not on that thread - Danny is referencing what I said about being born again:

losh14:

I appreciate this discussion. There’s a distinction between being “born again” in the ecstatic, personal and emotional experience of God (the evangelical sense), “born again” in the technical sense of having been baptized, brought anew into the New Covenant (Catholic and some Reformed sense), and being “born again” in the idea of committing one’s life to Christ and living within that committment (probably universal across Christianity). All of these are important to salvation and I think all will be a part of a lifelong believer.

I apologize if you feel I’ve denigrated you by belittling “born again” but I do not see where I have restricted this cherished doctrine. As I said **all of these - personal experience, baptism, committment - are important to salvation and a part of a lifelong believer **.

I look forward to continuing the born again discussion with you on the other thread - and invite others here who are interested in to follow the arrow link in my quote above - as I look forward to continuing the present discussion with you here.

Back to point, when you asked about why the disciples left Jesus, were you referencing part of Jn 6 or another passage?

Also, again, Shark (OP), did you have your question answered about the use of wine?

 

[MarkInOregon]

Sorry, not wasting my time. You’ve already admitted that you’re not willing to listen to anything I have to say.

Mr. Clover,

You really haven’t offered any support for your view or really addressed points made in posts responding to you–all you do is things like the post above.

Your response to post #38 was: “Whatever. I’m not wasting my time on this anymore. I’m going swimming” Is this an example of the politness you’re looking for?

You have been listened to your questions such as “How do you know this” have been addressed but you have failed to address those responses telling us why our understanding is wrong and then offering support for your understanding–instead we get “i’m not wasting my time”

Your very first post here was sarcastic and condescending in tone. Anyway if you want meaningfull polite dialog on this important topic you can find it here–but you have to be willing to engage in it without constantly insulting those who respond. Post #38 did nothing to warrant the response it received from you–indeed a conclusion that could be drawn is that maybe you don’t have a response and are irritated by that fact and so respond it the dismissive manner in which you did.

I wish you peace and hope that some seeds for your meditation and study have been planted.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Danny_Clover]

Mr. Clover,

You really haven’t offered any support for your view or really addressed points made in posts responding to you–all you do is things like the post above.

Your response to post #38 was: “Whatever. I’m not wasting my time on this anymore. I’m going swimming” Is this an example of the politness you’re looking for?

You have been listened to your questions such as “How do you know this” have been addressed but you have failed to address those responses telling us why our understanding is wrong and then offering support for your understanding–instead we get “i’m not wasting my time”

Your very first post here was sarcastic and condescending in tone. Anyway if you want meaningfull polite dialog on this important topic you can find it here–but you have to be willing to engage in it without constantly insulting those who respond. Post #38 did nothing to warrant the response it received from you–indeed a conclusion that could be drawn is that maybe you don’t have a response and are irritated by that fact and so respond it the dismissive manner in which you did.

I wish you peace and hope that some seeds for your meditation and study have been planted.

Peace,
Mark

In other words, you can’t answer the question either.