How to argue the Holy Eucharist to a Sola Scriptura Protestant

[holdencaulfield]

I was having an argument about the Holy Eucharist today. Here’s how
it went.

(Me) The bread and wine actually becomes the body and blood of Christ.

(Them) That’s ridiculous no it doesn’t how would that even work.

(Me) It doesn’t physically look different but it is changed.

(Them) No it’s not.

(Me) Christ says it changes, so it changes. It’s in the Bible.

(Them) That’s your interpretation of the Bible.

(Me) No the Apostles and early Christians all teach it as does the Catholic Church. I think they are better qualified to make that interpretation.

(Them) That was the Apostles interpretation of what Christ said.

(Me) Exactly they know better, they were there, Christ told them, that’s what they taught.

(Them) It doesn’t matter that’s your interpretation, not mine.

That’s about how the argument went. I decided to use science after that point. I started to tell my friend about all the Eucharistic Miracles.

(Them) It doesn’t matter we can’t be 100% sure about those and thats still your interpretation of the Bible, I have my own.

At this point the argument was over with both people being angry at each other. Should I just drop it, or should I try again? I thought the science would work. It didn’t. What do you think?

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Are they rationalists or modernists?

JJ

 

[holdencaulfield]

Are they rationalists or modernists?

JJ

Honestly probably both. They won’t except anything unless it makes sense to them. However they would most likely be the unconcerned Conservative Protestant. Like they believe but they don’t think that doctrine is important, and outside of prayer don’t think that God can have any role in day to day life.

 

[Tietjen]

I was having an argument about the Holy Eucharist today. Here’s how
it went.

(Me) The bread and wine actually becomes the body and blood of Christ.

(Them) That’s ridiculous no it doesn’t how would that even work.

(Me) It doesn’t physically look different but it is changed.

(Them) No it’s not.

(Me) Christ says it changes, so it changes. It’s in the Bible.

(Them) That’s your interpretation of the Bible.

(Me) No the Apostles and early Christians all teach it as does the Catholic Church. I think they are better qualified to make that interpretation.

(Them) That was the Apostles interpretation of what Christ said.

(Me) Exactly they know better, they were there, Christ told them, that’s what they taught.

(Them) It doesn’t matter that’s your interpretation, not mine.

That’s about how the argument went. I decided to use science after that point. I started to tell my friend about all the Eucharistic Miracles.

(Them) It doesn’t matter we can’t be 100% sure about those and thats still your interpretation of the Bible, I have my own.

At this point the argument was over with both people being angry at each other. Should I just drop it, or should I try again? I thought the science would work. It didn’t. What do you think?

These people will not believe if Jesus Christ Himself came down from Heaven and told them so. STOP casting pearls among the swine. Pray for them and perhaps some day they will be more open to the idea that truth is not dependant upon what THEY do or do not believe. God bless.

 

[Irish_Saints]

I’ve discovered this to be the case in many instances. Many protestants like to believe they are “sola scriptura”, but when push comes to shove, it’s “sola mia interpretatione scriptura.” They essentially set themselves up as magesteriums unto themselves. I find it further ironic that so many would have a problem with papal infalibility when, for all intents and purposes, they claim the ability to infalibly interpret scripture and set doctrine for their own.

Without an agreed-upon framework, I’m afraid all you can do at this point is pray for God’s enlightenment. Don’t worry tho…it’s one person’s job to plant the seed, another to water, but it’s always God who causes it to grow. You’ve done your job. Now it’s up to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Joero]

Honestly probably both. They won’t except anything unless it makes sense to them. However they would most likely be the unconcerned Conservative Protestant. Like they believe but they don’t think that doctrine is important, and outside of prayer don’t think that God can have any role in day to day life.

Just explain to them honestly that the bread and wine that are offered in the holy sacrifice of the mass should substantially change, on the consecration of the validly ordained priest, inorder to become the body and blood, respectively, of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In the old covenant (under the Mosaic Law), the bread and wine were always offered everyday to God. The bread (Exo. 25:30) and the wine (Exo. 29:40) respectively. As years went on, the people under the Mosaic Law desecrated these stuffs through their inequities and you could find that God won’t accept anymore these kind of stuffs including the burnt animals and others.
Isa. 1:11-14
Jer. 6:20
Mal. 1:10
Isa. 40: 6-7
Hos.6:6
So, the bread and wine should be changed into the body and blood of our Lord for it is the perfect sacrifice to God (Heb. 9:14) and God does away all the old covenant sacrifices and puts the sacrifice of Christ in their place (Heb. 10:9). This is the mystery of the holy sacrifice of the mass. Jesus Christ is the High Priest himself and should offer these sacrificial gifts to the Father (Heb. 8:3), for He is forever alive (Rev. 1:18).

 

[KiraSana]

In addition to the Scripture quoted above, it is difficult to get around John 6 - if a person is being honest, how can you explain Jesus letting a large number of his followers leaving him with the idea He just told them they had to actually eat His body and drink His blood! Surely if they were under a false impression, He would have corrected their misunderstanding. But that’s not what happened…

That being said, that is one of many Bible passages I more or less glossed over as a Protestant. I thought I knew the Bible well, but when I was studying the Catholic Church, it was as if I was reading the passage for the first time! Only by the grace of God may a person understand and have faith. Sometimes it is better to drop the debate and pray fervently for a softening of the heart.

 

[po18guy]

Should I just drop it, or should I try again? I thought the science would work. It didn’t. What do you think?

Reason fails us. Logic fails us. Words fail us. Volume fails us. Take them to prayer. The Holy Spirit never fails us. They cannot resist the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The Saints commonly took such intractable problems to prayer. They will see in God’s time.

One day they will know, and you may have played a big part in that, but the heavy lifting is the Lord’s.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Newbie2]

It’s pointless to argue. Simply state your Catholic beliefs and why you believe them, then pray for them.

The only Protestants that you might get close to having them understand are Lutherans, who believe that through Communion they receive the body and blood, even though it is not truly present in the wine and host.

The best scripture, methinks, is in the Gospels:

**While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. **

To which the likely reply is that Jesus was not speaking literally; a curious reply since whomever you’re arguing with takes most if not all of the rest of scripture literally. Ask them about the creation story and see if they interpret it literally or not.

 

[po18guy]

To which the likely reply is that Jesus was not speaking literally; a curious reply since whomever you’re arguing with takes most if not all of the rest of scripture literally. Ask them about the creation story and see if they interpret it literally or not.

We are admonished to keep Christ’s commands. Just how are we supposed to do that if they are metaphoric? You’re right. I don’t get it either.

Christ’s peace.

 

[SyCarl]

A question I have posed on another thread where something similar is being discussed.

With respect to John 6 being taken literally I do have a question. Jesus says:

51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Taking these literally would seem to say that if we partake of Jesus body then we will be saved. Jesus puts absolutely no conditions on these statements. He says if you eat you live. Would this mean that if I went to a Catholic Mass and received the Eucharist ilicitly and without believing that I would be automatically saved? According to the Catholic Church I would have eaten Jesus’ flesh and drunk His blood and that is all He says is required if He is speaking literally. Would you agree with this and if not how can Jesus’ words here be reconciled with saying no?

 

[po18guy]

A question I have posed on another thread where something similar is being discussed. With respect to John 6 being taken literally I do have a question. Jesus says: Taking these literally would seem to say that if we partake of Jesus body then we will be saved. Jesus puts absolutely no conditions on these statements. He says if you eat you live. Would this mean that if I went to a Catholic Mass and received the Eucharist ilicitly and without believing that I would be automatically saved? According to the Catholic Church I would have eaten Jesus’ flesh and drunk His blood and that is all He says is required if He is speaking literally. Would you agree with this and if not how can Jesus’ words here be reconciled with saying no?

First, Christ allowed those who did not believe His words to leave him. Next, go to Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. He warns that you eat and drink judgment unto yourself if you fail to discern the body. I believe Paul. You must both believe and eat to receive the spiritual benefits. To non-Catholics, there is danger of it becoming spiritual poison for the very reason Paul stated.

Christ’s peace.

 

[SyCarl]

First, Christ allowed those who did not believe His words to leave him. Next, go to Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. He warns that you eat and drink judgment unto yourself if you fail to discern the body. I believe Paul. You must both believe and eat to receive the spiritual benefits. To non-Catholics, there is danger of it becoming spiritual poison for the very reason Paul stated.

Christ’s peace.

But we are asked to take Jesus as speaking literally here about the transformation of the bread and wine. If we are to take that literally, why should we not logically take the whole thing literally? It looks very much like what Protestants are accused of doing, cherry-picking what supports your position. Are we to take part of His statement literally but not the whole thing?

Again Protestants are accused of ignoring Jesus’ clear words in John 6, but if I take them literally and accept what He expressly says I am wrong? Jesus puts no qualification on it. He doesn’t say “If you believe and eat you will be saved” or “If you eat, but only in a worthy manner you will be saved.” He literally says eat and you are saved.

 

[Mannyfit75]

But we are asked to take Jesus as speaking literally here about the transformation of the bread and wine. If we are to take that literally, why should we not logically take the whole thing literally? It looks very much like what Protestants are accused of doing, cherry-picking what supports your position. Are we to take part of His statement literally but not the whole thing?

Again Protestants are accused of ignoring Jesus’ clear words in John 6, but if I take them literally and accept what He expressly says I am wrong? Jesus puts no qualification on it. He doesn’t say “If you believe and eat you will be saved” or “If you eat, but only in a worthy manner you will be saved.” He literally says eat and you are saved.

Carl,

He means that Jesus wants us to eat him. Jesus said, “I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.” John 6:57

Of course if you read the entire context, Jesus said his flesh is real meat and his blood is real drink. This isn’t symbolic. This is real. The idea or belief that Jesus didn’t mean literally, is a new doctrine. Jesus doesn’t teach new doctrine.

When Jesus says we must eat him, we shall. That is what he commanded us to do. It’s saddens me that Protestants lack the sacrament to make this a reality for them. It would be better for them to convert and become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

Protestants have no Real Presence of Jesus Christ in their churches. Their churches are have no Jesus.

 

[po18guy]

But we are asked to take Jesus as speaking literally here about the transformation of the bread and wine. If we are to take that literally, why should we not logically take the whole thing literally? It looks very much like what Protestants are accused of doing, cherry-picking what supports your position. Are we to take part of His statement literally but not the whole thing?

Again Protestants are accused of ignoring Jesus’ clear words in John 6, but if I take them literally and accept what He expressly says I am wrong? Jesus puts no qualification on it. He doesn’t say “If you believe and eat you will be saved” or “If you eat, but only in a worthy manner you will be saved.” He literally says eat and you are saved.

In allowing those who did not believe His words to depart, he winnowed the crowd to those who believed. John Baptist told the crowds, “His winnowing fan is in his hand” He gathered the wheat into his barn, but the others, the chaff, well you know what happened to them. Thus, those who remained with Christ both believed and ate. Notice that those who left were protesting? Human nature does not change.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Joe_5859]

At this point the argument was over with both people being angry at each other. Should I just drop it, or should I try again? I thought the science would work. It didn’t. What do you think?

It’s hard to convince people when they’re not really seeking out the answers. If they’re convinced they already know the answer, it likely won’t matter what you put in front of them. The best you can hope for is to plant some seeds that maybe, just maybe, they could be wrong.

I don’t think science usually works well as a proof. One of my former roommates was a Protestant and I showed him a book I had on the incorruptible saints, complete with pictures of saints who have been dead for centuries but look as though they are only sleeping! His response was that he didn’t believe that it was real. He thought it must have been staged. The only way he would have been convinced would have been to actually travel to those places and see the uncorrupt bodies himself. And even then, there’s no telling whether or not he would have believed.

Scientific phenomena like eucharistic miracles or uncorrupt saints do help bolster the faith of believers, but they seldom convince the unbelievers. It is especially difficult to convince non-Catholic Christians as they can, at the very least, fall back on the old “it-must-be-a-trick-of-the-devil” explanation.

Atheists and agnostics can’t use this explanation, but they probably still wouldn’t buy it unless they saw it for themselves and conducted their own exhaustive scientific analysis to discredit every other possible explanation. And even then, their faith that science will “some day” be able to explain the phenomenon may override their willingness to chalk it up as a genuine miracle.

 

[Kolbe300]

It looks very much like what Protestants are accused of doing, cherry-picking what supports your position. Are we to take part of His statement literally but not the whole thing?

Again Protestants are accused of ignoring Jesus’ clear words in John 6, but if I take them literally and accept what He expressly says I am wrong? Jesus puts no qualification on it. He doesn’t say “If you believe and eat you will be saved” or “If you eat, but only in a worthy manner you will be saved.” He literally says eat and you are saved.

This is the exact reason why I believe the literal vs. not-literal argument for anything in the Bible is pointless. This is especially true when a Catholic debates with a protestant. The protestant could probably care less what the Catholic Church may say on the subject so both parties are stuck with a sort of “I know you are but what am I” kind of argument. It boils down to an argument of opinion (sometimes on one verse), which can go 'round and 'round until both parties are dizzy.

In my opinion, the only valid Biblical argument that can be made is if the text being debated upon is used within the context of the entire Bible. Any time someone says, “But the Bible says ‘this’…”, I will usually respond with, “okay, and does that fit with what the rest of the Bible says?” We all agree (usually) that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. John 6 looks very literal to me and I believe it to be so. I also believe that the rest of scripture not only doesn’t deny a literal translation of John 6, but supports it.

SyCarl, if a protestant debating with me asks if he/she should also take the part “eat and you will be saved” literally I would respond with “Sure. Go for it.” In doing so, the idea that “faith alone” is what saves will fall flat on its face. Elsewhere in the Bible when asked how one enters eternal life Jesus said, “Keep the commandments.” Is He contradicting Himself or are both statements very true? As someone mentioned, Paul tells us that to eat the bread or drink of the cup unworthily we will have to “answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” To me, that helps to confirm the fact that the Eucharist is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ. The Church teaches us that we should not receive the Lord’s body in the Eucharist in an unworthy matter. In essence, doing the exact same thing for us as Paul did for the Church in Corinth. So, if we are receiving the Lord as we should, then when Jesus says, “eat and you will be saved”, it makes perfect sense because it’s true. And if we are eating worthily, it means we’ve been doing as Jesus asks, such as keeping the commandments. So when Jesus tells us to “keep the commandements” to find eternal life, it makes perfect sense because it’s true. It all adds up when I interpret John 6 literally. Does it all add up when you don’t?

Peace!

 

[holdencaulfield]

Thank You everyone. I think the best outlook is prayer. That is what I will use.

St. Thomas pray for us doubters.

 

[Sir_Knight]

(Me) Christ says it changes, so it changes. It’s in the Bible.

(Them) That’s your interpretation of the Bible.

(Me) No the Apostles and early Christians all teach it as does the Catholic Church. I think they are better qualified to make that interpretation.

(Them) That was the Apostles interpretation of what Christ said.

Of course it was THEIR interpretation of what Christ said and ALL of the NT is based on their INTERPRETATION of what Christ said. If their interpretation is incorrect, then there is no way to know what the true message is because all we have is THEIR INTERPRETATION. If they got it wrong, then you can’t trust anything else found in the NT.

Where does that leave them?

 

[holdencaulfield]

Of course it was THEIR interpretation of what Christ said and ALL of the NT is based on their INTERPRETATION of what Christ said. If their interpretation is incorrect, then there is no way to know what the true message is because all we have is THEIR INTERPRETATION. If they got it wrong, then you can’t trust anything else found in the NT.

Where does that leave them?

That’s a good point I will try to make that.