How do you refute this protestant argument?

[jlhargus]

It very much reads as a symbolic gesture to me.

The only way to for sure refute this would be to go back in time and ask Jesus to clarify. Unless someone is able to do that, it reads open to interpretation. .

Could you point out a verse or so as to why, to you, it reads as a symbolic gesture? Actually the Church was there and the literal meaning has come down through Apostolic Tradition from that time.

 

[po18guy]

This is the one millionth demonstration of the absolute error of bible alone. Our Lord did not found His CHURCH on either bible or dictionary - that would be ludicrous. As well, all such pseudo-arguments rely on the logical fallacy of proof texting. Scripture cannot be rent asunder. Paul writes of the Eucharist, as does Luke in the Road to Emmaus passage. What about the 100% consistent, unquestioned practice of Christians, both east and west, over the past 2,000 years? Bible alone does not clarify because that is NOT how Jesus founded His Church.

Evidence that Jesus was speaking literally, if one must rely on the easily twisted written record: John 16, in particular, verse 29. Jesus no longer spoke to them in parables or figures, but plainly. Thus, He also was speaking plainly at the consecration at the last supper. This was proven when the two disciples recognized Him only in the breaking of the bread (Lk. 24). Jesus disappeared, leaving… the blessed bread.

Big picture: Who would attack the Holy Eucharist? Who attacks all that is good and holy? Which spirit incites men to disbelief? Who is the liar and father of lies?

Yeah…

 

[Cathoholic]

ResoluteSheep. Concerning “symbolism” and Jesus in the Blessed Sacramwnt . . .

You mentioned John 6.

Then said you have a Protestant friend say the Eucharist is tied up in symbolism.

The way I would reply would include the REALITY of Transubstantiation, AND the concomittant symbolism that accompanies this great gift.

This may help you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11298188&postcount=11

This may also be of help to you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11458457&postcount=63

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[steve_b]

Catholic Argument

In John 6:52-58, it features Jesus telling the Jews about the need to consume His Body and Blood in order that we may have life in us. It can be understood that the Jews took Him literally as they questioned ‘‘how can this man give us His flesh to eat?’’ (John 6:52) but instead Jesus pressed His message further in John 6:53 by saying ‘‘Truly truly, I tell you’’ which was somewhat similar to declaring it confidently.

Protestant refutation

While we Catholics argue that Jesus did not tell the Jews ‘‘it was only a symbol!’’ since He actually meant it literally, Protestants argue that Jesus did not correct them because throughout the Book of John, Jesus does not correct the Jews, such as in John Chapter 2 where Jesus says ‘‘destroy this temple, and I will raise it again after three days’’ the Jews took Him literally but Jesus did not correct them and say ‘‘no wait, the temple I was referring to is me’’ and the Protestants also reasoned that this was because ‘‘he did not entrust Himself to them’’ (John 2:24-25)

Question
How do we Catholics respond to this argument?

In Jn 6, how did Jesus explain, why those “disciples” left Him?

“64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him.”

Aquinas had a great phrase

“To those who have faith no explanation is necessary, to those who have no faith no explanation is sufficient.”

Jesus knew in advance who among His disciples, had no faith. Who they were that did NOT believe. Those who would leave Him

Protestants don’t believe what Jesus taught there, nor what the Catholic Church teaches either. They are in that same camp who left. I find one of the scariest part of that discourse, Jesus didn’t go after them. He let them go.

 

[eddie_too]

if i recall correctly, until the 16th century all christians believed the consecrated bread and wine to be the Real Presence of Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

i do not know how much more conclusive a doctrine can be.

 

[thinkandmull]

This argument is self-defeating. When Jesus said destroy the temple, they took him literally (per this argument). Ergo, it only stands to reason that they would also take him literally when he tells them to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why would the Jews flip-flop between “he’s being literal” and “he’s just using metaphors” when they were looking for ways to catch him in blasphemous speech?? I don’t think they would be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

they took him literally both times

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

they took him literally both times

that was my point

 

[thinkandmull]

Oh I get your point now. Jesus said he could raise the temple in three days. That is a euphemism because he meant his body. Its the opposite with John 6

 

[Frankenfurter]

Catholic Argument

In John 6:52-58, it features Jesus telling the Jews about the need to consume His Body and Blood in order that we may have life in us. It can be understood that the Jews took Him literally as they questioned ‘‘how can this man give us His flesh to eat?’’ (John 6:52) but instead Jesus pressed His message further in John 6:53 by saying ‘‘Truly truly, I tell you’’ which was somewhat similar to declaring it confidently.

Protestant refutation

While we Catholics argue that Jesus did not tell the Jews ‘‘it was only a symbol!’’ since He actually meant it literally, Protestants argue that Jesus did not correct them because throughout the Book of John, Jesus does not correct the Jews, such as in John Chapter 2 where Jesus says ‘‘destroy this temple, and I will raise it again after three days’’ the Jews took Him literally but Jesus did not correct them and say ‘‘no wait, the temple I was referring to is me’’ and the Protestants also reasoned that this was because ‘‘he did not entrust Himself to them’’ (John 2:24-25)

Question
How do we Catholics respond to this argument?

For me, this argument falls apart because in John 6, Jesus’ disciples would also have to be untrusted. This makes no sense, since Jesus has given Peter the keys to the kingdom, and in all cases always corrects them when they make a mistake of interpreting him. Jesus is their teacher and does not allow them to have wrong conclusions.

I accept the argument that the Jews were sometimes not corrected by Jesus and came to wrong conclusions, but I don’t accept that Jesus did not trust his disciples, including Peter with whom Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom.

 

[Mousey]

Catholic Argument

In John 6:52-58, it features Jesus telling the Jews about the need to consume His Body and Blood in order that we may have life in us. It can be understood that the Jews took Him literally as they questioned ‘‘how can this man give us His flesh to eat?’’ (John 6:52) but instead Jesus pressed His message further in John 6:53 by saying ‘‘Truly truly, I tell you’’ which was somewhat similar to declaring it confidently.

Protestant refutation

While we Catholics argue that Jesus did not tell the Jews ‘‘it was only a symbol!’’ since He actually meant it literally, Protestants argue that Jesus did not correct them because throughout the Book of John, Jesus does not correct the Jews, such as in John Chapter 2 where Jesus says ‘‘destroy this temple, and I will raise it again after three days’’ the Jews took Him literally but Jesus did not correct them and say ‘‘no wait, the temple I was referring to is me’’ and the Protestants also reasoned that this was because ‘‘he did not entrust Himself to them’’ (John 2:24-25)

Question
How do we Catholics respond to this argument?

MT 27
62

35 The next day, the one following the day of preparation, 36 the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate

63

and said, "Sir, we remember that this impostor while still alive said, ‘After three days I will be raised up.’

64

Give orders, then, that the grave be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him and say to the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead.’ This last imposture would be worse than the first."

It doesn’t seem that they had any misunderstanding.
They seemed to understand perfectly.

 

[exnihilo]

Others have provided good reasons to accept the Catholic teaching. But one way to go about this is after presenting these arguments is to concede that the Protestant could be right. More specifically to say they could be right if all we have to go on is the Bible. Say if that were so neither one of us would ever have a way of knowing the Truth. But you as a Catholic believe we don’t just have the Bible. You have Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church to guide you. So you don’t have to wonder which one of you is right whereas your Protestant friend would never be able to know for sure.

 

[Wesrock]

Just an addendum to what was said, Christ was, in a manner, speaking symbolically, though not in the manner the Protestant challenger means it. We know that Christ was not calling on people to rush in and start eating him then and there, and we know that he was not calling on them to do so to the body that was taken down dead from the cross. We also know that the Eucharist a symbol (but not in a way that excludes it being literal). We truly receive Jesus Christ mystically under the symbol of/appearance of bread and wine. The bread and wine are a symbol of a truly present higher reality.

I’m not saying anyone should run off with this terminology, but some of the early Church Fathers do speak in this manner, some with a Platonic-inspired idea that the symbol makes the archetype truly manifest in itself, so it’d be helpful to be familiar with that way of speaking about the Eucharist, at least.

 

[steve_b]

For me, this argument falls apart because in John 6, Jesus’ disciples would also have to be untrusted. This makes no sense, since Jesus has given Peter the keys to the kingdom, and in all cases always corrects them when they make a mistake of interpreting him. Jesus is their teacher and does not allow them to have wrong conclusions.

I accept the argument that the Jews were sometimes not corrected by Jesus and came to wrong conclusions, but I don’t accept that Jesus did not trust his disciples, including Peter with whom Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom.

There is a distinction here. The apostles are also called disciples. Then there are all the rest of Jesus disciples who are NOT apostles…

Example:

Jn 6: 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;

 

[Frankenfurter]

There is a distinction here. The apostles are also called disciples. Then there are all the rest of Jesus disciples who are NOT apostles…

Example:

Jn 6: 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;

So Peter (an apostle) was not corrected. Peter is left thinking that Jesus was speaking literally, and Jesus does not correct him. Can anyone provide biblical proof that Peter interpreted John 6 as being symbolic?

If we assume that Jesus would trust his apostle Peter, then he would correct him if he has made the wrong interpretation. But Jesus does not. Peter’s literal interpretation is the same as the other disciples.

In other cases, when Jesus’ apostle make a wrong interpretation, he corrects them, and the Gospel makes sure that we the readers also get the correct interpretation. The gospels do record the other Jews making wrong conclusions and going uncorrected by Jesus as the original argument points out and gives one example.

This overall argument fails because we would have to apply it to the apostles including Peter and claim that Jesus did not trust them and would allow them to come to the wrong conclusions.

Thank you for making the distinction between the disciples (which includes the Jews who may have sometimes gone uncorrected by Jesus) and the apostles, who Jesus trusts and always corrects.

 

[steve_b]

So Peter (an apostle) was not corrected. Peter is left thinking that Jesus was speaking literally, and Jesus does not correct him. Can anyone provide biblical proof that Peter interpreted John 6 as being symbolic?

Are you asking that because you want to refute those who might think Peter took Jesus symbolically in Jn 6?
F:

If we assume that Jesus would trust his apostle Peter, then he would correct him if he has made the wrong interpretation. But Jesus does not. Peter’s literal interpretation is the same as the other disciples.

Yes. Both took Jesus literally.

The 12 stayed, and most of the “disciples” left Him.
F:

In other cases, when Jesus’ apostle make a wrong interpretation, he corrects them, and the Gospel makes sure that we the readers also get the correct interpretation. The gospels do record the other Jews making wrong conclusions and going uncorrected by Jesus as the original argument points out and gives one example.

By Jesus not correcting Peter, for what he said, speaks volumes.
F:

*This overall argument fails *because we would have to apply it to the apostles including Peter and claim that Jesus did not trust them and would allow them to come to the wrong conclusions.

Re: The highlighted text, as in the Protestant (symbolism) argument fails?
F:

Thank you for making the distinction between the disciples (which includes the Jews who may have sometimes gone uncorrected by Jesus) and the apostles, who Jesus trusts and always corrects.

Inspite of those disciples following Jesus and seeing Jesus perform miracles, they weren’t willing to accept Jesus on His teaching on the bread of life (the Eucharist)

 

[PolliceVerso]

Even though I do not believe in transubstantiation, I do believe the Eucharist is truly efficacious, and not merely symbolic. That said, John 6:52-58 cannot refer to the Eucharist for several reasons. First, there was no such thing as the Lord’s Supper at that time, and thus it would have made no sense for Him to refer to it here. Second, it also teaches that anyone who physically takes the Eucharist - even if they explicitly reject Christ - is saved. This is obviously not the case. In the Gospel of John, Jesus frequently uses physical descriptions to point to spiritual realities: “I am the Good Shepherd,” “I am the Door,” I am the Vine," “I will give you living water.” etc.

If you want to convince a Protestant, this verse is not the way to go. I would just concede that it is symbolic and focus on other proofs, such as the actual institution of the Lord’s Supper.

 

[steve_b]

Even though I do not believe in transubstantiation, I do believe the Eucharist is truly efficacious, and not merely symbolic.

How does it become efficacious for Protestants given they have no valid orders, no valid miniserial priesthood to consecrate?
P:

That said, John 6:52-58 cannot refer to the Eucharist for several reasons. First, there was no such thing as the Lord’s Supper at that time, and thus it would have made no sense for Him to refer to it here.

see the link at the end of this post.
P:

Second, it also teaches that anyone who physically takes the Eucharist - even if they explicitly reject Christ - is saved.

There were probably those who thought that way. That’s why PAUL made the following qualification.
1 Corinthians 11:27

Paul received that from the HS.

***Jn 14:26 *“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things,d] and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Some understandings came from Jesus, later, through the HS.

In Context
P:

This is obviously not the case. In the Gospel of John, Jesus frequently uses physical descriptions to point to spiritual realities: “I am the Good Shepherd,” “I am the Door,” I am the Vine," “I will give you living water.” etc.

And the spiritual reality is, Our Lord’s body, blood, soul, and divinity is truly present sacramentally, in the Eucharist
P:

If you want to convince a Protestant, this verse is not the way to go. I would just concede that it is symbolic and focus on other proofs, such as the actual institution of the Lord’s Supper.

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6

 

[Mousey]

Even though I do not believe in transubstantiation, I do believe the Eucharist is truly efficacious, and not merely symbolic. That said, John 6:52-58 cannot refer to the Eucharist for several reasons. First, there was no such thing as the Lord’s Supper at that time, and thus it would have made no sense for Him to refer to it here.

Why? It is like saying He hadn’t died yet so it makes no sense for Him to refer to His death. Jesus is referring to what He is going to do at the Last Supper.

Second, it also teaches that anyone who physically takes the Eucharist - even if they explicitly reject Christ - is saved. This is obviously not the case. In the Gospel of John, Jesus frequently uses physical descriptions to point to spiritual realities: “I am the Good Shepherd,” “I am the Door,” I am the Vine," “I will give you living water.” etc.

If you want to convince a Protestant, this verse is not the way to go. I would just concede that it is symbolic and focus on other proofs, such as the actual institution of the Lord’s Supper.

Where does it say that even if they reject Christ they will be saved if they take the Eucharist? What it does say is that they walked away because the saying was to hard. It is still being rejected for the same reason.